freenode/#clim - IRC Chatlog
Search
1:04:14
Pixel_Outlaw
Anyone have a moment to look at this error upon quickloading? I've updated all dists, the quicklisp client. http://i.imgur.com/cNtjtqD.png
5:06:21
jackdaniel
Colleen: notify Pixel_Outlaw it seems that for some reason trivial-garbage's make-weak-hash-table doesn't remf this keyword argument before passing to make-hash-table in sbcl
5:06:53
jackdaniel
Colleen: notify Pixel_Outlaw what is weird, because I have newest trivial-garbage and all works just fine for me. do you have some hacked version in your local-projects?
5:23:19
jackdaniel
even better, this is a problem somewhere higher, because I have the same result in clx-fb
5:24:42
loke
jackdaniel: in what way? Because as far as I know, if you have rpotation of DRAW-RECTANGLE*, then that becomes transformed into a DRAW-POLYGON*, and rotations of rectangles work fine.
5:45:32
jackdaniel
(note: not a regression, because previously this code didn't handle transformed patterns at all, and this problem is specific to them)
5:45:51
jackdaniel
rotation of ellipsis works on my computer since I've implemented them without a problem
5:45:57
loke
jackdaniel: I see. So previously the actual shape of the polygon was properly transformed?
5:46:28
jackdaniel
polygon shape is transformed correctly, as I said above this problem is local to draw-design
5:51:36
loke
This is the error I'm getting: https://gist.github.com/lokedhs/f56e394a0715c63203f787182a8e2e0e
5:53:55
loke
I'll investigate it later on my other system. If it happens there too, something is really strange.
7:16:25
jackdaniel
I think we'd benefit a lot if someone would write a better xrender extension chapter with various usage examples (covering the api) and description how they work
8:39:29
borodust
does LGPL-2.1+ license imply i can actually use mcclim in a single image that is licensed under any license?
8:42:35
borodust
i know it was probably beaten to death, but compiling into a single image is more like statically linking..
8:43:19
jackdaniel
let me quote part of the abovelinked post: "My strong belief lies on the side that it is not derived work and if the author of the Lisp library gave it the LGPL license – they meant it. If we take another interpretation, then it is no different than licensing it with GPL, so it would be nonsense."
8:45:28
borodust
so, compiling mcclim into an executable image with proprietary license would be considered dynamic linking?
8:48:29
jackdaniel
I think that other interpretation wouldn't defend itself in any court case; but I get it that some people are too afraid of anything having GPL in its name and *just in case* won't touch it. But that's their problem
8:50:50
borodust
the problem is that lgpl is for shared/dynamic libraries, but we compile code into an image, which is formally totally statically linked
8:52:22
borodust
like, even if go into https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-lesser-general-public-license-v2.1-(lgpl-2.1) where summary is probably not written by a lawyer either, it states "Must disclose" "If the software is statically linked (i.e. compiled into)"
8:52:55
jackdaniel
I've already elaborated on how I see things (both in blogpost and on this channel). I strongly believe what counts most is an undeniable intent of action.
8:54:03
jackdaniel
(with exception for C-based implementations like ECL, which doesn't have running system image)
8:55:00
borodust
jackdaniel: i'm talking about this _i.e._ section thing and if it is true from the text of the license and not just some random "i.e.", then images fall under that rule
8:57:12
jackdaniel
I can't speak of others, contributors date back to 1999 and most of them I do not know. Let me ask you this: what would be their intent to give Lisp library (knowing images are a thing) license LGPL-2.1+ (and not GPL-2.0+)?
8:59:04
jackdaniel
when you load fasl you have functions in the image, still technically speaking it is static runtime-wise
9:00:11
loke
For what it's worth, as I even read the blog post and gave opinions even before JD made it, I fully agree with his interpretation.
9:04:59
borodust
jackdaniel: also, when you load shared library, you too have all statically linked in run-time
9:07:28
borodust
jackdaniel: hmm, after linker mapped stuff into process memory ain't funcion called directly then?
9:09:28
borodust
sorry for the offtopic, i'm really not here for the flaming, i'm just considering implications of bringing lgpl'ed lisp software into a project
9:10:14
jackdaniel
I hope I've presented both sides of possible argumentation lines and where my strong opinion stands
9:12:13
jackdaniel
also keep in mind, that combined work license doesn't imply relicensing one of its components
9:12:53
jackdaniel
otherwise it would be enough for me to use your mit project with gpl library and say, that you are obliged to relicense your library because *I* have combined it with other software
9:14:36
jackdaniel
I don't think there is right and wrong in here. if you are afraid to use lgpl-2.1+ libraries then maybe you shouldn't (for sake of sound sleep at night)
9:15:45
borodust
i'm gathering opinions, because i'm not sure, and there could be several interpretations, and i like yours :) but you are not the sole contributor, hence the questions
9:15:52
jackdaniel
I'll be happy with more contributions, but convincing people is not my strong suit
9:16:46
jackdaniel
I would be *very* suprised if any of current contributors I know would present other opinion on that
9:17:48
jackdaniel
it is LGPL-2.1+ because we can't relicense it (due to older copyrights) to something more convincing for unsure people (like LLGPL) even if there is no need for that from the licensing perspective (but there is from the emotional perspective, and that counts too)
9:30:44
borodust
why it isn't possible to add a preamble if it doesn't change the intent of the contributors