Re: CLHS vs. free CL documentation

[Jean L. <bu...@gn...>]

I understand that users are looking into documentation. I am too. 

There is some free reference but I could not yet find it. It shall be starting point for future even if it cannot be done right now.

It is GNU software, it shall not download the non free stuff. Reading and browsing fine, but no need to ask them to accept the non free license.

On September 21, 2017 5:05:16 PM GMT+03:00, Bruno Haible <br...@cl...> wrote:
>Jean Louis wrote:
>> I think there is free version being made and other
>> sources for documentation.
>> 
>> Maybe something like
>> http://clqr.boundp.org/source.html
>
>This text covers between 5% and 10% of CL. Development stopped 2 years
>ago.
>
>> Something like this maybe:
>>
>http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/lang/lisp/doc/standard/ansi/0.html
>
>This text is not a good basis for free documentation. It was taken
>(stolen,
>you might say) from the ANSI standardization without permission by the
>ANSI bodies. Maybe it is not legal to distribute it at all. Later, Kent
>Pitman negotiated the license of what would become the CLHS with ANSI.
>
>> Or like this
>> http://jtra.cz/stuff/lisp/sclr/index.html
>
>This text covers between 1% and 3% of CL.
>
>> It is better putting effort to make a free
>> documentation for Common Lisp and provide such to
>> users.
>> ...
>> GNU software or free software shall not drive the
>> users to non-free documentation in my opinion
>
>I disagree. Of course, it would be better if ANSI CL would have been
>distributed as free documentation; this would have made it possible
>for the clisp documentation to be distributed as a single coherent
>body - rather than as an "implementation notes" part that refers to
>a standard in hundreds of places.
>
>But the fact is:
>  * The unity of Common Lisp (i.e. the similarity of behaviour of
>    Common Lisp implementations, which translates to portability of
>    Lisp code) is caused by the fact that people (especially the
>    users) *can* and *do* look at the CLHS frequently.
>    Therefore you do NOT serve the users if you tell them not to
>    look at the CLHS.
>  * Through the pointers that you have given above, you have shown
>    that creating a free Common Lisp documentation is a multi-
>    person*year effort, that none of the existing projects are
>    going to achieve in the next 10 years.
>
>Bruno