PLisp and the public domain
Adam Warner
Does anyone have comments/extra information on PLisp and its public domain
status? John Peterson was insistent in 1992 that he not be bothered by
anyone wanting to use the code (``This code is public domain - I don't
care what you do with it. Just don't bother me!!'') Yet he left 17
copyright notices on it and I want to be justified in removing them all
(note: this is not an issue of avoiding credit for the original code but
one of having sole copyright on any modified work).
Here are the details:
In 1986/87 John Peterson (now of Haskell fame) wrote a Lisp to Postscript
compiler called PLisp. In 1992 he packaged and distributed it after
posting this 7 April message to comp.lang.lisp and comp.lang.postscript
(7 April is in the message ID. GMT time was 6 April):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1992Apr7.014813.1249%40cs.yale.edu
I made a Common Lisp front end for Postscript called PLisp a few years
ago. This translates many common lisp functions to postscript as well
as manage the environment and many lispisms (&optional and &rest
arguments, multiple values, macros, ...). I'm not working on this
thing anymore but it's available for anyone that wants it. It's
available via anonymous ftp in pub/plisp/plisp.tar.Z on
nebula.cs.yale.edu (128.36.13.1).
The package is archived here:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/lang/lisp/code/io/plisp/0.html
The Lisp files were copied to create the tarball that same day, 7 April
1992. 17 of those files contain this copyright notice:
;;; Copyright (c) 1987 John Peterson
;;; Permission is given to freely modify and distribute this code
;;; so long as this copyright notice is retained.
John Peterson added a README file to the distribution on 8 April 1992. In
it he exclaims:
This code is public domain - I don't care what you do with it. Just
don't bother me!!
I consider it clear that the only reason these individual copyright
notices remain in the archive is because John Peterson simply copied
over years old files without modifying them. He made his intentions clear
the next day in the README file (perhaps after someone bothered him :-)
[Does anyone consider I should contact him about this? ;-]
Regards,
Adam
PS: I posted a similar request for comment to Debian legal about 10 hours
ago (no replies at this time).
Adam Warner
> Does anyone have comments/extra information on PLisp and its public
> domain status? John Peterson was insistent in 1992 that he not be
> bothered by anyone wanting to use the code (``This code is public domain
> - I don't care what you do with it. Just don't bother me!!'') Yet he
> left 17 copyright notices on it and I want to be justified in removing
> them all (note: this is not an issue of avoiding credit for the original
> code but one of having sole copyright on any modified work).
I should have contacted John Peterson in the first place. I decided to and
received a response within four minutes! He later told me that I shouldn't
forget to use Haskell instead of Lisp, so I've sent a reply explaining why
I'm using Common Lisp :-)
Here is John Peterson's reply so there is a public record of the
clarification that people can search for (I mentioned setting this out
publicly):
Received: from ragged.cs.yale.edu (ragged.cs.yale.edu [128.36.229.110]) by
mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.2-CR) with
ESMTP id AMU10551; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:22:41 +1300 (NZDT)
Whoa! I haven't touched that thing for years and years! Go nuts.
Delete copyrights. Have fun. Use it in good health. Good luck!
John
Many thanks to John Peterson for the clarification and his generosity.
Regards,
Adam
John Peterson
system is just the thing for it. But meanwhile you're welcome to do
whatever you want with poor old plisp. Have fun!
John Peterson
Ex Lisp Hacker, Haskell Convert
Matthew Danish
``formal:''
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/04_.htm
--
; Matthew Danish <mda...@andrew.cmu.edu>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."
Espen Vestre
> That's right! All you guys need a little discipline and a formal type
> system is just the thing for it.
Indiscipline
I do remember one thing.
It took hours and hours but..
by the time I was done with it,
I was so involved, I didn't know what to think.
I carried it around with me for days and days..
playing little games
like not looking at it for a whole day
and then.. looking at it.
to see if I still liked it.
I did.
I repeat myself when under stress.
I repeat myself when under stress.
I repeat myself when under stress.
I repeat myself when under stress.
I repeat..
The more I look at it,
the more I like it.
I do think it's good.
The fact is..
no matter how closely I study it,
no matter how I take it apart,
no matter how I break it down,
It remains consistant.
I wish you were here to see it.
I like it.
-- King Crimson (from "Discipline", 1981)
--
(espen)
Paolo Amoroso
<use...@consulting.net.nz> wrote:
> In 1986/87 John Peterson (now of Haskell fame) wrote a Lisp to Postscript
> compiler called PLisp. In 1992 he packaged and distributed it after
JWZ did something similar, also available at the CMU Common Lisp repository
(I think it's among his collection of TI Explorer tools).
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <amo...@mclink.it>
Kaz Kylheku
> That's right! All you guys need a little discipline and a formal type
> system is just the thing for it. But meanwhile you're welcome to do
> whatever you want with poor old plisp. Have fun!
Hi, I'm browsing www.haskell.org, and I can't find any pointers to
high quality commercial implementations, or to an ANSI standard for
the language. I also can't seem to be able to find any document which
states how the inconsistent, strange syntax maps to a uniform data
structure which can be macro-manipulated in a portable way. Can you
help me out? I could be a Haskell convert too, if we could only solve
these minor issues.
Adam Warner
>> In 1986/87 John Peterson (now of Haskell fame) wrote a Lisp to
>> Postscript compiler called PLisp. In 1992 he packaged and distributed
>> it after
>
> JWZ did something similar, also available at the CMU Common Lisp
> repository (I think it's among his collection of TI Explorer tools).
Thanks for the tip. It looks like a complete graphing system! But I can't
even begin to work with code that contains this clueless comment repeated
100 times:
;;; All Stanford Copyright code is in the public domain. This code may be
;;; distributed and used without restriction as long as this copyright
;;; notice is included and no fee is charged. This can be thought of as
;;; being equivalent to the Free Software Foundation's Copyleft policy.
Regards,
Adam
Paolo Amoroso
<use...@consulting.net.nz> wrote:
> Hi Paolo Amoroso,
[...]
> > JWZ did something similar, also available at the CMU Common Lisp
> > repository (I think it's among his collection of TI Explorer tools).
>
> Thanks for the tip. It looks like a complete graphing system! But I can't
> even begin to work with code that contains this clueless comment repeated
> 100 times:
>
> ;;; All Stanford Copyright code is in the public domain. This code may be
> ;;; distributed and used without restriction as long as this copyright
> ;;; notice is included and no fee is charged. This can be thought of as
> ;;; being equivalent to the Free Software Foundation's Copyleft policy.
What about contacting JWZ and Stanford? The latter may no longer be
interested in the code, and willing to release it under a different
license.
Tim Bradshaw
> Hi, I'm browsing www.haskell.org, and I can't find any pointers to
> high quality commercial implementations, or to an ANSI standard for
> the language. I also can't seem to be able to find any document which
> states how the inconsistent, strange syntax maps to a uniform data
> structure which can be macro-manipulated in a portable way. Can you
> help me out? I could be a Haskell convert too, if we could only solve
> these minor issues.
But it has a *strong*, *disciplined* type system. Well, generally you
need some whips, chains, dungeons and stuff to enforce the discipline
as well.
--tim
Raymond Toy
Paolo> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:26:47 +1300, "Adam Warner"
Paolo> <use...@consulting.net.nz> wrote:
>> Hi Paolo Amoroso,
Paolo> [...]
>> > JWZ did something similar, also available at the CMU Common Lisp
>> > repository (I think it's among his collection of TI Explorer tools).
>>
>> Thanks for the tip. It looks like a complete graphing system! But I can't
>> even begin to work with code that contains this clueless comment repeated
>> 100 times:
>>
>> ;;; All Stanford Copyright code is in the public domain. This code may be
>> ;;; distributed and used without restriction as long as this copyright
>> ;;; notice is included and no fee is charged. This can be thought of as
>> ;;; being equivalent to the Free Software Foundation's Copyleft policy.
Paolo> What about contacting JWZ and Stanford? The latter may no longer be
Paolo> interested in the code, and willing to release it under a different
Paolo> license.
Probably the best approach. The code can't by copyrighted by Stanford
and also be public domain since public domain implies no copyright.
But IANAL.
Ray
Pascal Bourguignon
Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> writes:
Dungeons, chains and whips never were standardized and produced in
high quality commercial way. That was artisanal handy work by stone
cutters, blacksmiths and tanners. In addition, the *strong*
*discipline* never was admonished by any ANSI commission, but by
expert filthy torturers.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fault in reality. Do not adjust your minds. -- Salman Rushdie
Adam Warner
> >> ;;; All Stanford Copyright code is in the public domain. This
> >> code may be ;;; distributed and used without restriction as long
> >> as this copyright ;;; notice is included and no fee is charged.
> >> This can be thought of as ;;; being equivalent to the Free
> >> Software Foundation's Copyleft policy.
>
> Paolo> What about contacting JWZ and Stanford? The latter may no
> longer be Paolo> interested in the code, and willing to release it
> under a different Paolo> license.
>
> Probably the best approach. The code can't by copyrighted by Stanford
> and also be public domain since public domain implies no copyright. But
> IANAL.
Also the claim that one can't distribute the software unless no fee is
charged flatly contradicts the Free Software Foundation's Copyleft policy.
Regards,
Adam
PS: Mark, the software is here:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/lang/lisp/code/impdep/explorer/0.html
I located it by typing site:cmu.edu explorer into Google.
I have also grepped these newsgroups articles to see if there was any
discussion about this. It does not appear the issue was raised:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/lang/lisp/news/ti/0.html