[racket-users] racket users] make-keyword-procedure follow-up

2019-08-29 Thread Kevin Forchione
> On Aug 29, 2019, at 1:24 PM, Kevin Forchione wrote: > > Hi guys, > I’ve been working for a little while with the idea of being able to pass > keyword arguments through a function that doesn’t define them. Additionally I > wanted to allow the “pass-through” function to define its own

[racket-users] [racket users] make-keyword-procedure follow-up

2019-08-29 Thread Kevin Forchione
Hi guys, I’ve been working for a little while with the idea of being able to pass keyword arguments through a function that doesn’t define them. Additionally I wanted to allow the “pass-through” function to define its own keywords. Additionally didn’t want to have to pre-specify what function

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

2019-08-29 Thread Sage Gerard
Joining in. I want to be part of this. -slg Original Message On Aug 29, 2019, 12:31 PM, 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users wrote: > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 11:27:41 AM UTC-5, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > >> Thanks for volunteering! I'll follow-up off-list. >> >> Sam > >

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

2019-08-29 Thread 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 11:27:41 AM UTC-5, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > Thanks for volunteering! I'll follow-up off-list. > > Sam > Sure thing. Just minutes ago I dug up the Relicensing Permission issue on GitHub and found you have made significant progress. Not looking to wrest this

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

2019-08-29 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Thanks for volunteering! I'll follow-up off-list. Sam On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:14 PM 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users wrote: > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-5, Matthew Flatt wrote: >> >> >> A pulse and keyboard is a good start, but the task requires significant >> initiative

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

2019-08-29 Thread 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-5, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > > A pulse and keyboard is a good start, but the task requires significant > initiative to work with the Conservancy to get guidance and make sure > things move along. The process may possibly involve contacting >

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

2019-08-29 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Thu, 29 Aug 2019 08:14:19 -0700 (PDT), "'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users" wrote: > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:01:51 AM UTC-5, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > > > Lingering elsewhere: the relicensing project that commenced more than > > > 2.5 years ago [5] — not clear whether under the SFC this

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

2019-08-29 Thread 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:01:51 AM UTC-5, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > Lingering elsewhere: the relicensing project that commenced more than > > 2.5 years ago [5] — not clear whether under the SFC this effort is > > alive, dead, or what. Of course, Galaxy's Edge took 3 yrs to build, > >

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

2019-08-29 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:03:42 -0700, Matthew Butterick wrote: > Did SFC do so in this case? No idea. Before the switch, Karen Sandler > from SFC circulated [2] a template agreement [3] but AFAIK the actual > agreement that Racket's core team signed, and the details thereof, > has never been shared

Re: [racket-users] Would it help to call racket2 something else?

2019-08-29 Thread Jack Firth
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 12:46:53 AM UTC-4, David Storrs wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 11:43 PM Sage Gerard > wrote: > >> >> Maybe I'm overthinking this. I already know that nothing in #lang racket >> is getting thrown out or anything. > > > Yes, it is. > I believe Sage's statement

Re: [racket-users] Is there an expanded form of the Racket2 purpose declaration?

2019-08-29 Thread Konrad Hinsen
Robby Findler writes: > Of course, it is good to make it easy to move to new versions of the > language, but if there is no real benefit to the transition for the > programmer (eg they aren't planning to touch that code for the next N > months anyway as it does its job well) then I think we