jackdaniel

This is addressed in the same paragraph - you can't scan/download "whole" github because you'll be throttled.

That's a very far-fetched assertion.

/me gasps - how rude! :~)

the correction is not really correct - you say lgpl-2.1 without the "or later version". It is sometimes abbreviated ls LGPL-2.1+, but SPDX identifier is preferable since it is semi-standard for abbreviating license names.

ECL license is LGPL-2.1-or-later (not LGPL2), the same applies to Clasp (which was forked from ECL).

n.b isn't this thread infested with bots? 4 or 5 nicks created 4 days ago with incomplete messages..

The op hypothetical assertion was that there is no difference between person and machine being 'inspired' by some creative work, so if we don't pursue George Lucas then why would we pursue copilot?

And the thing is that the machine does not benefit from the same rights as a person, so we can't absolve MS from responsibility because "it does a similar thing to what people do".

So, to add one more point to spell out: the context matters! ;)

I've touched two things - that's why they were put in separate paragraphs. Let me spell it out in different words:

1. People have certain rights, duties and prohibitions. Equating the right of George Lucas to use ideas he saw with rights of a machine to do that misses the point by the same measure as asserting that MS enslaves the copilot, but in the opposite direction.

2. Scale does matter. If I'm an ordinary person then the act of eating won't ruin the ecosystem. Now imagine a construct that operates under the same principle of eating, but its jaw, stomach and speed of eating is many magnitudes larger - do we apply same limitations to both, because the principle of eating is the same?

Also, since I'm spelling things out, the fact that I'm seeing the same argument many times over, and that it is so obviously flawed, makes me think that this is a symptom of astroturfing.

I see this argument over and over again, and it is so flawed that it is hard to bear.

There is no equal sign between a person and a program.

There is also that thing called "scale" that is critical to the interpretation of the action.

Is eating meat fine? - maybe. Is eating all animals OK? - Hmm...

Sometimes when working on software the goal is not to get a competitive advantage, but to promote some ideas. Copyleft license is a tool that aims to help with granting, that the work derivatives are available to the public to read and modify (i.e to prevent closing the source code of the program that is commercially sold).

The concrete difference you ask about is that the work derived from copyleft code retains the license and the source code can't be closed. If you scrap the license, then the code created by someone who had clear goal in mind when writing it for not making improvements over it closed source, ends up with possibility of being closed source.

ECL compiled with Emscripten to WASM. This is a proof of concept port that will be merged upstream before the upcoming release.

I think that it is up to the toolkit you use. For example with Wayland you could work with a single buffer and commit it, or work with two buffers and swap them. Moreover you can do things on the client side, say:

drawing-buffer (single) [user copies to] -> commit-buffer ---------------------------------- [system copies to] -> screen

alternatively

drawing-buffer (double) [user swaps to] -> commit-buffer ---------------------------------- [system copies to] -> screen

etc.

A brief blog post about output buffering in graphical applications.

I think that most people who advocate against corporate/outrage-driven censorship are more concerned with the basis of such action - i.e if the speech is legal then it should not be banned from public forums based on a sentiment of the opposing group.

I.e they take no issue with resolving that on legal grounds, but against succumbing to social (real or not) pressure of bystenders.

Undermining the right to privacy is wicked, especially when you consider incorporated methods.

Atracious: extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel - after Merriam-Webster. The key word here is "or".

Mind, that ovearreaching control has a great potential of abuse, including physical violence. Also notice, that the right to privacy is often recognized as a human right.

Neglected and even actively undermined the right to privacy is an act against the society. Some would consider that being an atrocity - contributing to a dystopia with oveareaching control of unchecked guardians ;)

Hey! I've learned network programming with your guide when I was teenager - thank you!

Since we talk about CLOS (and HyperSpec, which is based on the last draft before the standard), I assume that we talk about Common Lisp. All conforming Common Lisp implementations have CLOS. To name a few which are used:

free: ABCL, CLISP, CCL, CMUCL, ECL, SBCL; commercial: AllegroCL, LispWorks. There are more.

I've made a diagram a few years back that shows the family with ancestors and sub-branches including these that are not complaint: https://ecl.common-lisp.dev/static/quarterly/img/vol4/all-hi...

Common Lisp strength is its standard; many programs developed on one implementation will work on another one. And standard includes CLOS.

As far as I know, scheme had a bit of problems with that the standard was too small, and there were numerous implementations of the same functionality that were different; the issue with fragmentation was also problematic in pre-common lisp times - that was one of reasons why there was a grant to create the standard - to unify numerous implementations.

In my experience people tend to use standard classes in Common Lisp, without further specialization (which is of course possible with MOP). They are part of the standard, so I'd say that they are "coded into the language" alright.

I've never heard that Python OOP is any good, not to even mention superior to other contemporary systems (like Java). Could you share the source where it is said that "Python class system is more flexible than other languages"?

libgc in its pre-release branch works fine with Emscripten.

It is more like:

(caller_capabilities[WHATEVER_CAPABILITY])(...);

when the capability is not present, then you get no_method_found or something similar.

What was the source doesn't matter for fighting COVID but certainly matters for people who work on gain of function research. If the virus leaked from the laboratory then it will be a strong argument against funding this kind of science.

Perhaps they didn't know about a library local-time[1]? You can't blame the programming language for the programmer shortcomings.

[1] https://common-lisp.net/project/local-time/manual.html

> It's essentially an MIT/BSD vs GPL debate but for text and media.

It is not. CC NC prohibits commercial use while GPL allows it.

Thanks!

Perhaps after the for-profit company scales and goes ipo it is much less likely to value anything but money, however such absolutist view doesn't apply to many small businesses that are often an extension of interests. Not everybody dreams about making a successful startup and selling it ;-).

Brilliant :)

Cool post :)

I'm one of ECL maintainers, if you have questions about the implementation itself then I'll be happy to answer.

Ecl and abcl (and of course sbcl) adopted pln before that, so this statement is not technically correct.

Both #ecl and #clim moved, yes.