R6RS Implementations and Licensing

Why are there no good, free, and non-GPL R6RS Scheme implementations? How the fuck am I supposed to embed this into my applications when I'm forced to fucking release the source code to the rest of my software under GPL. No wonder it doesn't have a lot of community adoption outside of academia and the open-sores community.

I wonder how much effort it takes to be this wrong

Not so sure about Scheme implementations, but when it comes to Common Lisp implementations, they are: public domain (or MIT/BSD-like, if your country has no public domain) for SBCL/CMUCL, LLGPL (LGPL which allows static linking) for Clozure CL, and LGPL for ECL and CLISP, there were also some other LGPL or BSD-ish lisps, and almost all libraries are BSD or MIT, with a few exceptions being LGPL, and of course commercial implementations which have their own terms. Pretty much all of them allow embedding and linking as you see fit, and only some of them require that you release changes (if you've made any) to the implementation side, if you decide to distribute binaries. I'd say I found CL licensing to be quite hassle-free and non-forceful(I'm free to license my code however I like, without being constrained much at all).

Since >>3 did it for CL, I might as well do it for R6RS (since I'm probably the only /prog/rider that actively uses it).

Why are there no good, free, and non-GPL R6RS Scheme implementations?
As it stands, there are 8 R6RS implementations.
- Ikarus, my preferred choice, GPL 3
- Ypsilon, New BSD
- Chez, proprietary, "petit" is free, the compiler costs money
- Larceny, LGPL
- Mosh, MIT
- Racket, LGPL
- Biwascheme, MIT
- Ironscheme, Microsoft Public License?

You will notice that only one of those is GPL. Most are "good", although some are better than others. Only one costs money.
How the fuck am I supposed to embed this into my applications when I'm forced to fucking release the source code to the rest of my software under GPL.
See above, although I will point out that most of these are unsuitable for embedding in the same way as Chibi or Tiny. You also do not have the CL problem of images, because most schemes and I believe all the R6RS ones (except larceny?), DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. Racket should work fine for embedding, but as I've already pointed out It's LGPL.
No wonder it doesn't have a lot of community adoption outside of academia and the open-sores community.
The reasons that Scheme does not have wide adoption are well known, and none of them are due to licensing.

>>4
The reasons that Scheme does not have wide adoption are well known, and none of them are due to licensing.
It's because it's slower than Ruby, has less libraries than Ruby, and requires more typing than C.

>>1,4
Fucking Idiots

s/4/5/

>>1
Cool story bro. 4/10.

>>5
Scheme is reasonably fast, much better than Ruby, and I'm not even a Schemer.

This thread has been closed and replaced with the following thread:

Subject: Pissing off Lispers who are tired of correcting the same old bullshit
Name:
Email:

It works.

This thread has been closed and replaced with the following thread:

Subject: Delivering Scalable Turkey Solutions using LISP Enterprise Edition
Name:
Email:

It doesn't work.

This thread has been closed and replaced with the following thread:

Subject: Replacing a thread with a different thread
Name:
Email:

It doesn't work.

This thread has been closed and replaced with the following thread:

Subject: Replacing a thread with a different thread
Name:
Email:

It works.

This thread has been closed and replaced with the following thread:

Subject: Replacing a thread with the same thread
Name:
Email:

It doesn't work.

This thread has been closed and replaced with the following thread:

Subject: Replacing a thread with the same thread
Name:
Email:

It works.

This thread has been closed and replaced with the following thread:

Subject: Amusement by repetition
Name:
Email:

It works, apparently.

This thread has been closed and replaced with the following thread:

Subject: It doesn't work.
Name:
Email:

It works.

This thread has been closed and replaced with the following thread:

Subject: This thread has been closed and replaced with the following thread
Name:
Email:

[b]This thread has been closed and replaced with the following thread[/b]:

[b]Subject[/b]: Thread for replacing threads
[b]Name[/b]:
[b]Email[/b]:

I hope it works[code].[/code]

R6RS is stupid anyway. Use r5rs + some srfi`s instead.

>>19
I'm going to offer you the same chance to justify yourself that I gave the r4rs retard. Granted, this task should be much easier, but if you honestly think that bare r5rs plus "some" srfis is going to get you anywhere you have neglected to look at the reality of every major scheme implementation.

>>19
Question: What's worse than a diehard Scheme/Lisp programmer who refuses to program in anything else?

Answer: A diehard Scheme/Lisp programmer who espouses the benefits of terse s-expression languages yet hypocritically refuses to keep up to date with the latest Scheme/Lisp language standards and sticks with the older versions because they think "if it's good enough for me, it's good enough for everyone else."

>>21
"if it's good enough for me, it's good enough for everyone else."
Unfortunately, it is good enough for a large amount of Schemers. Still worse is the R4RS snails and people like Tom Lord. R6RS is far from perfect, but the fact of the matter is that it has been treated in much the same way as guile used to be, snobbish memetic repetition of faults both real and imaginary.

>>20
I am not against modern scheme standarts/modern scheme-like languages (racket, for example). I don't like r6rs because it was jewish conspiracy. Read why Chicken Scheme (my favorite implementation) doesnt support r6rs.

>>23
The algorithmic language scheme is a jewish conspiracy. Your arguments are invalid.

>>23
I'm well aware of Felix's opinions of R6RS. As for a jewish conspiracy, I was right, you don't have any good reason.
I am not against modern scheme standarts
Except for the only modern standard
/modern scheme-like language
You mean basically a dozen different incompatible R6RS'

>>25
I completely agree with Felix and he has some valid arguments, unlike you.
(Also, new /= modern)

>>26
The interesting thing here being that I actually use R6RS and am therefore in a position to judge it, as opposed to Felix who has always opposed it by virtue of the fact that he sees nothing wrong with R5. I asked why you has a problem with R6RS, if you had given me anything I could have said "Fair enough". But the fact of the matter is, you don't have an opinion of your own.
 So, my argument for R6. We already provide all this functionality in various incompatible ways in many different Schemes. History tells us that portability has been a waste of time between them. Leaving it the SRFIs leaves us in the lovely position of having SRFI 9 be one of the most widely supported of any, and yet almost everyone prefers to use their own implementations define-record-type. ERR5RS has been abandoned by all those who were so willing to trumpet the failings of R6RS and there is one implementation of it.
So I ask you again, Why do you prefer R5RS? What in your opinion are it's failings?
I'd say that it's pretty amazing that you can have such strong opinions and yet no evidence to back them up, if that wasn't par for the course with programmers.

>>27
Unless you've implemented R6RS (from scratch, not just forking an existing R5RS or R6RS implementation), you are not in a position to judge it.

>>28
What a ridiculous notion. So the list of people qualified to judge R6RS are Leppie, Fujita, Abdulaziz, Higepon and whoever implements Biwa? (Since Racket, Larceny and Chez predate R6RS and therefore the implementations aren't "from scratch")

>>29
If the people who updated Racket, Larceny, and Chez to support R6RS are the same people who created them, then they are qualified.

>>30
Well, that is certainly the case. But you still haven't answered my question, what is your problem with R6RS or is this your way of suggesting that you don't think yourself qualified to discuss it? In which case, you shouldn't have passed an opinion on it in the first place.

>>31
I'm >>28 and >>30, but not anyone else in this thread.

>>32
The feel free to ignore the latter part.

>>27
I dislike R6RS because it's useless and because it lures new people.

Why are there no good, free, and non-GPL R6RS Scheme implementations?
http://mosh.monaos.org/

>>34
see >>4

>>36
erm that should be >>35

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Lisp

>>38
For thothe without comedic tatheth,
How ironic.

I'm pretty sure GPL software can be used in closed-source software.  You only need to provide the source of the portion that was GPL to begin with.  The GPL is tl;dr, but if you're serious about this, you should read it in its entirety yourself.

>>40
no, the GPL is pretty clear about how derivative works need to be licenced. You are probably thinking of the LGPL

>>40
If your software combines directly with the GPL software (i.e. it is statically linked and possibly even dynamically linked together) then the derived software program is subject to the terms of the GPL. When you wish to distribute GPL software, then you must follow the licensing terms.

>>42
Dynamic linking counts. Runtime loading has a few outs though.

>>39
How ironic.
It's like meeting the woman of your dreams... and then finding out she's a C++ programmer.

>>39,44
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1925705

Are you GAY?
Are you a NIGGER?
Are you a GAY NIGGER?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!