Re: [Axiom-legal] Licensing Aldor (was: GPL vs. modified BSD)

[Frederic Lehobey]

Hi Bill,

On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 09:19:43AM -0500, Bill Page wrote:
> On November 21, 2006 3:54 AM you wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 11:28:06PM -0500, Bill Page wrote:

> > Do not blame others for your own mistakes. From day one in Axiom
> > community I am advocating using and enhancing (and fixing) the
> > already existing Axiom (old) *free* compiler. (To my eyes non-free
> > code does not even exist and is doomed to join the trash.)
> 
> Aldor is "almost free" (perhaps you will claim that there is no
> such thing?). Many people have copies of the Aldor source and
> binary versions are publicly available.

I do not have any. And am I not interested in having it *as it is not
free software* (what could I do from it, not having enough interesting
rights).

Note that in the past (1999) when Axiom was "almost free" (we had
access to all the libraries but not the source of some binary parts in
the core system) I have been severly beaten (during the last months of
my PhD) by some (faulty) binary only parts. At that time I have
sweared (thanks to my Axiom very bad experience) to ever use again
only *really* free software. Please understand why I am so picky about
freeness of anything. It is not a goal. But a prerequisite from where
anything is possible.

See how much time you are waisting with non-free Aldor.

> > I have been constantly contradicted by people like you (and Ralf
> > if I do not mistake) who where 'waiting for Aldor', the 'future'
> > of Axiom.
> 
> Actually Aldor is the past of Axiom. Aldor was developed by the
> same IBM research group that developed Axiom. And Aldor (then
> named AXIOM/XL) was a part of Axiom the last time Axiom was
> available as a commercial product. And a significant amount of
> work has already been done to convert the Axiom library to Aldor.

Have you used Aldor at that time? I have been waiting from 1995 to
1999 for Aldor to become usable for reasearch which it has never
achieved (and by far). Aldor might be a funny pet project (as could be
Mathemagix or SAGE) that could grow into something interesting (as is
SAGE today). But as it is not free software, I DO NOT CARE (and I
deeply regret it is favored instead of Axiom old compiler in the Axiom
community). It is now too late for Aldor. It has missed its time frame
and opportunity (now filled by SAGE). I would be sad it were the same
for Axiom because everybody has its eyes (wrongly) focused on
Aldor. Maybe it is already too late...

Many "failed" projects during their commercial life turn into free
software (this is what occurred to Axiom). Maybe Aldor is not failed
enough to become free sofware (but, ironically, I believe you actually
never had so much chance to have Aldor finally released as free
software).

> But you are wrong that I am against the improvement of SPAD. I
> just believe that it is too difficult a problem for a volunteer-
> based open source project. Apparently it was even too difficult
> for the original Axiom developers. That is why they wanted to
> develop Aldor.

I am actually sad we have not driven enough lisp gurus to fix the
compiler. But (re)writing a compiler from scratch is an industrial
project the (free) Axiom community is far from being able to consider.

> > Now you measure the failure of your option. This way of seeing
> > things (not fixing the current compiler) has pissed me off and
> > has (for the moment) much lowered my interest in Axiom ('waiting
> > for Aldor' as it seems it ever has been since I known it,
> > commercially or as a free software project, but more than 10
> > years have passed since then...).
> >
> 
> ??? But Aldor was part of the last commercial release of Axiom.

See above.

> > For your own information, I have looked into the old compiler to
> > see if I was able to fix things I consider critical (being able
> > to have variables instead of constants in domains and category
> > calls, something Aldor is able to do).
> 
> Is Aldor really able to do that? Wouldn't that violate the principle
> that types are static?

It is supposed to. What I mean is being able to create domains in
compiled code with variables in their parameters (not change the value
of the variable after instantiation). With this much of the Galois
field factorisation of Axiom would be much easier to write *and
maintain* (currently, it is a kind of hack using the integers and
contradicting the grounding principles of Axiom).

> > I felt very alone at that time (it was before Gaby's involvement
> > and everybody was looking for a wiki, and / or a graphical interface
> > in Java at that time). I have to confess I have not been able to
> > understand sufficiently well how the old compiler does work to be
> > able to fix it (I am not the right person for this kind of job).
> > Future will tell if such tasks will be achieved and will resurrect
> > my interest for Axiom.

> I am not optimistic about the possibility to do this.

Neither am I now.   :(

> > I find your own attitude (petition, threat of violating their
> > rights on the code) with respect to NAG and other Aldor copyright
> > owners very rude and unacceptable. A very bad example from the
> > free software community that does to encourage companies to
> > participate in free software project and communities.

> But you are making a mistake. Petitions for open source are very
> common. That more than 50 people have stated publicly via the online
> petition that they think open source Aldor is a good idea (including
> Steven Watt, the primary developer of Aldor). As to "threats of
> violating their rights", I think you greatly overstate the situation.
> Since everyone agrees that Aldor should be open source, I was only
> proposing a way to proceed - open the code now and fix the licensing
> issues later.

I think it boils down to what Tim has summarized better than I
could. It is only a matter of respect. Respect THEIR choice and draw
you own conclusions from it.

In French we have « un tiens vaut mieux que deux tu l'auras » which
sounds like "better now than tomorrow" and "promises are for those
willing to believe them". The reality is what we really have. The rest
is literature.

> I was talking about release Aldor source code (no binary blobs) under
> the Aldor Public License.

Aren't there any binary blobs. It is even sadder for them (not to be
free)...  :)

> > Honestly I only look at what they have already achieved (actually
> > publish Axiom as open source). The promises do not count. Only for
> > those who want to believe them and they may hurt more than those who
> > dwell on them.

> To me it is a matter of making best use of (potentially) available
> intellectual investment. Right now both Axiom and Aldor are suffering
> because what was meant to be together was "sold" separately.

This is where we differ. You are taking into account potentialities
(which make you not to move on the old compiler front) whereas I am
only considering reality.

By waiting long enough, you increase your chances to finally be
right. But the delay might be much too long to go anywhere on the road
to the 27 year horizon. (Time flies, you know?)

Best regards,
Frédéric