[Savannah-register-public] [task #14686] Submission of Common LISP Switch Parser

[Ineiev]

Update of task #14686 (project administration):

  Status:None => In Progress
 Assigned to:None => ineiev 

___

Follow-up Comment #1:

Hello, John!

I'm sorry, your archive only contains a symbolic link that naturally doesn't
work for me; could you attach a tarball with actual sources?

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14686] Submission of Common LISP Switch Parser

[anonymous]

Additional Item Attachment, task #14686 (project administration):

File name: switch-parse.tar.gzSize:4 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14686] Submission of Common LISP Switch Parser

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #2, task #14686 (project administration):

I'm afraid you are right, it's very simple; you could host it on a web page,
perhaps it's too simple for a dedicated Savannah group.

Unfortunately, I have next to no idea about what it would look like when your
parser is functional.  If it's going to grow into something considerably
larger, I'd suggest to re-submit it then.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14621] Submission of Graph Model Library

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #11, task #14621 (project administration):

>>> One relevant consequence of this is that in US courts
>>> contributors to software only have standing for their own contribution in
>>> the absence of some procedure that clearly establishes the right for some
>>> person or entity to act on their behalf.
>>
>> Do you mean they are denied the right to hire a lawyer? This seems
>> extremely surprising. I believe it would violate the UDHR.
>> Could you support this with some references?
>
> Of course anyone can hire a lawyer to defend their rights.  The point
> is that simply enlisting someone (e.g., a lawyer) to defend rights has
> no bearing on the rights that can be defended or the potential
> remedies that might be obtained.

I'm confused: are you saying that I can pay lawyers, but I can't
authorize them to act on my behalf in courts? This is what I would
describe as being effectively denied the right to hire a lawyer.
Note that I'm not discussing the set of rights the authors might
defend, I'm discussing "the absence of some procedure that clearly
establishes the right for some person or entity to act on their behalf."

>> Yes, I think the activity of "Us" releasing a proprietary version
>> of the library in binary-only form has some bearing on the rights
>> of people wishing to use derivative works, in particular,
>> that proprietary version of the library. Why doesn't it?

I still don't understand why this has no bearing on the rights of
people wishing to use proprietary derivative works.

> Nobody is obligated to use any particular work of any sort.  Nor is
> anyone obligated to contribute to any particular project and may
> decline to do so for any reason whatsoever.

The GNU project doesn't support this line of reasoning, especially
the first part. We maintain that offering people proprietary software
is injustice by itself, nobody should have the power to do that.

> In this case, the released code is forever free; contributions to it
> are free; anything derived from it is free.

No, proprietary software derived from it by "Us" is not free.
How can it be free?

> Additionally, contributors retain ownership of copyright,
> retain moral rights, and have full economic rights regarding their
> contributions.

They lose the legal ability to disallow "Us" using their work
in proprietary products. This is an economic right, by the way.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14578] Submission of Generic Data Structures Library

[Nicolas Darnis]

Follow-up Comment #14, task #14578 (project administration):

New try...

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14676] Submission of A concise, robust, and extensible syntax highlighting library for the web

[Henri Lesourd]

Follow-up Comment #2, task #14676 (project administration):

> Node.js contains parts of OpenSSL licensed under
> the Original BSD license, it makes the whole library
> GPL-incompatible.
>
I didn't know that.

In any case, the core hilite.js code is Javascript, we only use
node.js as an interpreter to run the Javascript server-based
parts of hilite.js. Our C code only depends on the libc, we
never link against any C-based library that would come from
node.

Thus it seems to me that in the current situation, there are
no dependencies that would prevent us to release our hilite.js
software under the GPL.

Indeed, it would be nice to get rid of this dependency
on node.js, but currently, our users ask for a number
of well-defined features (which include the software
being Free), and our schedule is already full for the
next few months.

That's why at the moment, it seems more reasonable to focus on
developing the software further and on getting feedback from
the users, and to plan a later survey to examine the problems
related to these kind of dependencies.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/