Hi,
I don't see any problems:
You probably need to install the following packages:
- clang
- llvm
- (GNU) make
- libffi
- readline
- anything I forgot
You may need to run termux-clean-elf on the "picolisp" executable and set
LD_LIBRARY_PATH explicitly.
Best Regards,
Alexander
Am 23.
Hi Bruno,
> since it does not come as a termux package anymore,
Really? I can see the picolisp package here in Termux.
It is still on pil64 though. I asked Fredrik, the maintainer of Termux, last
week to change to pil21. Didn't get an answer yet.
> can I compile it on my phone?
Yes, just
since it does not come as a termux package anymore, can I compile it on my
phone?
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 09:22:29AM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Yes, I want pil21 as a piece be completely "free", in the spirit of MIT.
corporations tend to abuse the idealist "spirit of free" often. I prefer
something in the middle of GPL and MIT which LGPL does in many cases.
The
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 09:03:47AM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
> On Sun 22 Nov 2020 at 01:32, Alexander Williams wrote:
> > Not a lawyer here, but PicoLisp 21 does **not** need to be GPL'd.
>
> it does not because it is already compatible with GPL
>
> > Everyone seems to confuse "linking to a
my vote to go for GPL and readline. As you said compatibility is guaranteed
and everybody knows it.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 9:23 AM Alexander Burger
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> at yesterday's PilCon it turned out that pil21 has a serious licence
> problem.
>
> A major design decision of pil21 was to
I think it should be fine. Picolisp is distributed as source code. The code
implementing readline can be GPL licensed. The code implementing everything
else can be a less restrictive license if desired. Binaries including
readline can be distributed as GPL, binaries without readline can be MIT.
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 04:45:41PM +0100, Davide BERTOLOTTO wrote:
> Great! :)
In fact, there is one very important reason why to avoid GPL in PicoLisp:
It is too complicated.
Just look at the long discussions we had here, and probably thousands of other
people around the world, trying to make
Coolest environment I've ever seen, but I need more handholding, no
segfaults, and eons of time.
Great! :)
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 15:17 Alexander Burger wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 02:49:58PM +0100, Davide BERTOLOTTO wrote:
> > Well, outside of the "flame wars", I think that this it is a genuine
> > problem that has to be solved by Alex.
>
> Yes, OK, and it *is* solved.
>
>
> > * use
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 02:49:58PM +0100, Davide BERTOLOTTO wrote:
> Well, outside of the "flame wars", I think that this it is a genuine
> problem that has to be solved by Alex.
Yes, OK, and it *is* solved.
> * use readline and make pil21 GPL
> * Make readline optional ...
> * Ditch readline
Well, outside of the "flame wars", I think that this it is a genuine
problem that has to be solved by Alex.
Using readline for pil21 in the current form requires him to use GPL for
Picolisp. I know it's nasty and almost nobody likes that, but it is the way
the GPL license works, at least on
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 07:36:57AM -0500, r cs wrote:
> Have you been putting up with flame wars this often in the past, or is it
> worse during COVID-19?
No flame war please! :)
The question came up at PilCon, so I asked here.
☺/ A!ex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE:
Look, the FSF own readline. They want every program that uses readline
to be released under the GPL. This may be antisocial of them, but
unless you specifically want to annoy them, you can either comply with
their conditions or stop using their code.
Sean Case
--
UNSUBSCRIBE:
Alex:
Have you been putting up with flame wars this often in the past, or is it
worse during COVID-19?
Thank you for supporting the rest of us and sharing your work with the
world.
Respectfully and with appreciation,
rcs
On Sun 22 Nov 2020 at 12:09, Alexander Burger wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:49:11AM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
>> it is only mess because you really want to find a loophole
>
> I don't want to find a loophole. I leave everything as it is (MIT/X11). I just
> want to point out how
On Sun 22 Nov 2020 at 11:16, Alexander Williams wrote:
> Tomas, you're allowed to relicense the MIT version of PicoLisp you
> received, as GPLv3, as long as you maintain the MIT license text.
what about customers that ban GPL on their machines?
--
UNSUBSCRIBE:
Tomas, you're allowed to relicense the MIT version of PicoLisp you
received, as GPLv3, as long as you maintain the MIT license text.
AW
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
what if i don't want to risk going to court because of this?
--
UNSUBSCRIBE:
On Sun 22 Nov 2020 at 11:12, Davide BERTOLOTTO
wrote:
> Right, but apparently nobody went to court for such topics, so it is still
> gray zone.
what if i don't want to risk going to court because of this?
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
On Sun 22 Nov 2020 at 11:23, Alexander Burger wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:03:31AM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
>> In my understanding it is irrelevant how the library is linked, or the fact
>> that
>> pil21 "depends" on it
>
> This is all such a mess! What is "linking" other than
>From the wiki page they you shared, quoting the FSF
Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two
parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We
believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of
communication (exec, pipes, rpc,
Hi Davide,
> Anyway, Alex what about this editline (not to be confused with the BSD
> one)? It may be enough for pil21 implementation:
> https://github.com/troglobit/editline#introduction
I believe it cannot do what I need.
I decided to abandon the @lib/led.l used in pil32 / pil64 and instead
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:03:31AM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
> In my understanding it is irrelevant how the library is linked, or the fact
> that
> pil21 "depends" on it
This is all such a mess! What is "linking" other than calling external code at
runtime?
In pil you can call any other
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:03:31AM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
> In my understanding it is irrelevant how the library is linked, or the fact
> that
> pil21 "depends" on it, as long as it is not distributing (modified (derived)
> or
> not) parts of libreadline.
According to
Hi Davide, Tomas,
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 10:07:44AM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Sun 22 Nov 2020 at 09:22, Alexander Burger wrote:
> > Yes, I want pil21 as a piece be completely "free", in the spirit of MIT.
>
> then it cannot depend on GPL library
I do not think so.
The
On Sun 22 Nov 2020 at 09:59, Davide BERTOLOTTO
wrote:
> In my personal opinion it will be okay if we use the readline library in
> pil21, since it is a *library* and we are not making a 'derivative' work
> out of it
this is wrong
there is exactly the same precedent already, see clisp
Hi Alex,
On Sun 22 Nov 2020 at 09:22, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Yes, I want pil21 as a piece be completely "free", in the spirit of MIT.
then it cannot depend on GPL library
>>From what I underseod so far, the GPL is all about "distributing". PicoLisp
>>does
> *not* distribute any GPLed code
According to the GPL FAQ *technically* a dynamically linked object still
falls under GPL
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic
However it seems that not everyone agrees on that fundamentalist view:
https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366
As far as I know, there has
Hi Tomas,
> even though pil21 is MIT licensed, the GPL dependency makes the combined
> work GPL licensed
>
> if i understand the raised issue correctly, alex wants the combined work
> to be MIT licensed, which means pil21 cannot depend on GPL software
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 09:08:32AM +0100,
On Sun 22 Nov 2020 at 07:00, Alexander Burger wrote:
> It is not even linked at *compile* time, but - dynamically - at runtime
> (shared library).
i don't think this makes any difference
the question is: does pil21 depend on GPL software? if yes, the
combined work has GPL licence. if not,
On Sun 22 Nov 2020 at 01:32, Alexander Williams wrote:
> Not a lawyer here, but PicoLisp 21 does **not** need to be GPL'd.
it does not because it is already compatible with GPL
> Everyone seems to confuse "linking to a GPL'd library that exists on the
> host computer" VS "linking to a GPL'd
31 matches
Mail list logo
