maxima-discuss — Maxima discussion list

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Raymond T. <toy...@gm...>]

On 4/23/26 3:03 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:

> Fair, I guess all caps makes it sound like it's a legal entity of some 
> kind.
> Maybe Maxima computer algebra _system_, to reflect what we call it on 
> the Sourceforge home page.
I’ll use that for the new files I’ve added, even though some of the new 
files are essentially bits of some other file.
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 5:59 PM Raymond Toy <toy...@gm...> wrote:
>
>     On 4/23/26 9:41 AM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
>
>>     Agreed with Ray that minimal is best.
>>
>>     Copyright notices haven't been needed since 1989 (Berne
>>     convention). As I said, the main value of the header is to inform
>>     people that the work is copyrighted and licensed under the GPL.
>>     From that perspective, a one-liner like this is probably
>>     sufficient for all files, old or new:
>>
>>     ;;; This file is part of the Maxima Computer Algebra Project
>>     (https://sourceforge.net/projects/maxima/)
>>     ;;; Maxima is copyrighted by its authors and licensed under the
>>     GNU General Public License.
>>     ;;; See COPYING and AUTHORS for details.
>     This works for me. Not sure how Robert feels about “Maxima
>     Computer Algebra Project”. There may not be any formal “Maxima
>     Project”, but I find that to be a good description of the loose
>     collection of people working on Maxima and the corresponding code
>     and info referenced from the Maxima website.
>     &#8203;
>
&#8203;

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Stavros M. <mac...@gm...>]

Fair, I guess all caps makes it sound like it's a legal entity of some kind.
Maybe Maxima computer algebra *system*, to reflect what we call it on the
Sourceforge home page.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 5:59 PM Raymond Toy <toy...@gm...> wrote:

> On 4/23/26 9:41 AM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
>
> Agreed with Ray that minimal is best.
>
> Copyright notices haven't been needed since 1989 (Berne convention). As I
> said, the main value of the header is to inform people that the work is
> copyrighted and licensed under the GPL. From that perspective, a one-liner
> like this is probably sufficient for all files, old or new:
>
> ;;; This file is part of the Maxima Computer Algebra Project (
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/maxima/)
> ;;; Maxima is copyrighted by its authors and licensed under the GNU
> General Public License.
> ;;; See COPYING and AUTHORS for details.
>
> This works for me. Not sure how Robert feels about “Maxima Computer
> Algebra Project”. There may not be any formal “Maxima Project”, but I find
> that to be a good description of the loose collection of people working on
> Maxima and the corresponding code and info referenced from the Maxima
> website.
> &#8203;
>

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Raymond T. <toy...@gm...>]

On 4/23/26 9:41 AM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:

> Agreed with Ray that minimal is best.
>
> Copyright notices haven't been needed since 1989 (Berne convention). 
> As I said, the main value of the header is to inform people that the 
> work is copyrighted and licensed under the GPL. From that perspective, 
> a one-liner like this is probably sufficient for all files, old or new:
>
> ;;; This file is part of the Maxima Computer Algebra Project 
> (https://sourceforge.net/projects/maxima/)
> ;;; Maxima is copyrighted by its authors and licensed under the GNU 
> General Public License.
> ;;; See COPYING and AUTHORS for details.
This works for me. Not sure how Robert feels about “Maxima Computer 
Algebra Project”. There may not be any formal “Maxima Project”, but I 
find that to be a good description of the loose collection of people 
working on Maxima and the corresponding code and info referenced from 
the Maxima website.
​

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Stavros M. <mac...@gm...>]

Agreed with Ray that minimal is best.

Copyright notices haven't been needed since 1989 (Berne convention). As I
said, the main value of the header is to inform people that the work is
copyrighted and licensed under the GPL. From that perspective, a one-liner
like this is probably sufficient for all files, old or new:

;;; This file is part of the Maxima Computer Algebra Project (
https://sourceforge.net/projects/maxima/)
;;; Maxima is copyrighted by its authors and licensed under the GNU General
Public License.
;;; See COPYING and AUTHORS for details.

Including the URL helps if someone has distributed the file independently
of the distribution.

MIT, the DOE, and Schelter are irrelevant at this point, especially since
they (or their heirs) are unlikely to participate in a lawsuit.

As for *who* can enforce the GPL for Maxima, since Maxima is a joint
project, *all *of the authors have the right to sue. But *share* files
might be a different case, since many of them have only one author, and
they are not integral to the project.

In practice, if it comes up, we would probably want to enlist the FSF,
which seems to be able to persuade infringers to desist.

          -s

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Richard F. <fa...@gm...>]

How about "Maxima computer algebra system"
 to distinguish it from, say, Nissan Maxima automobile or Maxima DC comics
character.
RJF


On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 10:56 AM Raymond Toy <toy...@gm...> wrote:

> On 4/23/26 4:48 AM, Barton Willis wrote:
>
> How about a minimal filer header—something like
>
> ;;; Copyright Contributors to the Maxima project.
> ;;; See the file COPYING for license information.
>
> Robert objects to “Maxima project”. How are we then to refer to Maxima?
> Just “Maxima”?
>
> A history lesson at the top of each file isn't all that helpful to developers, and the past quarter century of commit comments, including authors and dates, is accessible from any git-aware editor.
>
> I agree. But if a single person basically wrote the entire file, I have no
> objection if he puts his name at the top. They deserve the credit. I don’t
> wouldn’t want any contributor adding the their name no matter how big or
> small. (Mostly.)
>
>
>

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Raymond T. <toy...@gm...>]

On 4/23/26 4:48 AM, Barton Willis wrote:

> How about a minimal filer header—something like
>
> ;;; Copyright Contributors to the Maxima project. ;;; See the file 
> COPYING for license information.
Robert objects to “Maxima project”. How are we then to refer to Maxima? 
Just “Maxima”?
> A history lesson at the top of each file isn't all that helpful to 
> developers, and the past quarter century of commit comments, including 
> authors and dates, is accessible from any git-aware editor.
I agree. But if a single person basically wrote the entire file, I have 
no objection if he puts his name at the top. They deserve the credit. I 
don’t wouldn’t want any contributor adding the their name no matter how 
big or small. (Mostly.)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Robert Dodier <rob...@gm...>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 22, 2026 10:42 PM
> *To:* Raymond Toy <toy...@gm...>
> *Cc:* Stavros Macrakis <mac...@gm...>; 
> <max...@li...> 
> <max...@li...>
> *Subject:* Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?
> Caution: Non-NU Email
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 5:18 PM Raymond Toy <toy...@gm...> wrote:
>
> > I don’t find this appropriate for new code. Neither MIT, UT, nor 
> William Schelter had anything to do with it. (Like Barton’s 
> hypergeometric.lisp, I think.) Probably just remove those lines and 
> leave the Maxima project line.
>
> Agreed that we should avoid giving credit to anyone who didn't
> actually work on the code.
>
> About crediting the Maxima project, I think we should avoid that, as
> it doesn't exist in a legal sense, so it can't be credited with
> authorship. I think it's OK to be vague about who the authors are.
> Something like "copyright 2000-2026 by the authors of this file."
> Exactly who that is can be discovered in the commit log.
>
> FWIW
>
> Robert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss__;!!PvXuogZ4sRB2p-tU!A7FTQLHpAuiWJZMpraDCo7oRmv8tmZ5iOekYmNIEZnjhSbJmhVAwdzt-efJ-RSfaTVGbgBqcFla_fpxityLlPw$
&#8203;

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Richard F. <fa...@gm...>]

I wonder what a lawyer would say.  perhaps
"this doesn't count as a copyright notice"?
  or
"no need for a copyright given the licensing is 'copyleft"?

so maybe just "see the file COPYING" is enough.

or maybe the implicit copyright of anything is still applicable if no
notice is attached.
RJF

On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 7:48 AM Barton Willis via Maxima-discuss <
max...@li...> wrote:

> How about a minimal filer header—something like
>
> ;;; Copyright Contributors to the Maxima project.
> ;;; See the file COPYING for license information.
>
> A history lesson at the top of each file isn't all that helpful to developers, and the past quarter century of commit comments, including authors and dates, is accessible from any git-aware editor.
>
> scuss <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss>
>

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Barton W. <wi...@un...>]

How about a minimal filer header—something like


;;; Copyright Contributors to the Maxima project.
;;; See the file COPYING for license information.

A history lesson at the top of each file isn't all that helpful to developers, and the past quarter century of commit comments, including authors and dates, is accessible from any git-aware editor.


________________________________
From: Robert Dodier <rob...@gm...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 10:42 PM
To: Raymond Toy <toy...@gm...>
Cc: Stavros Macrakis <mac...@gm...>; <max...@li...> <max...@li...>
Subject: Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

Caution: Non-NU Email


On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 5:18 PM Raymond Toy <toy...@gm...> wrote:

> I don’t find this appropriate for new code. Neither MIT, UT, nor William Schelter had anything to do with it. (Like Barton’s hypergeometric.lisp, I think.) Probably just remove those lines and leave the Maxima project line.

Agreed that we should avoid giving credit to anyone who didn't
actually work on the code.

About crediting the Maxima project, I think we should avoid that, as
it doesn't exist in a legal sense, so it can't be credited with
authorship. I think it's OK to be vague about who the authors are.
Something like "copyright 2000-2026 by the authors of this file."
Exactly who that is can be discovered in the commit log.

FWIW

Robert


_______________________________________________
Maxima-discuss mailing list
Max...@li...
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss__;!!PvXuogZ4sRB2p-tU!A7FTQLHpAuiWJZMpraDCo7oRmv8tmZ5iOekYmNIEZnjhSbJmhVAwdzt-efJ-RSfaTVGbgBqcFla_fpxityLlPw$

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Compiling Maxima with GCL 2.7.2 pre-release results in empty executable

[Gunter K�n. <gu...@pe...>]

Perhaps part of the problem is that the dependency information in maxima.system is broken, currently. 

On 23 April 2026 05:52:45 CEST, Robert Dodier <rob...@gm...> wrote:
>Hi David, well, the problem seems to have been that there were some
>files left over from a previous build a couple of months ago. I
>deleted all the files from the previous build and tried it again and
>it succeeded.
>
>I don't know what got messed up -- some combination of make,
>defsystem, and/or GCL -- but anyway a clean build fixed the problem.
>
>Robert
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Maxima-discuss mailing list
>Max...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss

Re: [Maxima-discuss] GCL slow reading files

[Gunter K�n. <gu...@pe...>]

If we compiled the share packages that would prevent the "cannot load draw" problems we had a least twice in the history of Maxima. 
And it would deal with the "compiling lapqck on sbcl runs out of memory" issue on sbcl.

Kind regards, 

   Gunter. 

On 22 April 2026 21:59:34 CEST, James Cloos <cl...@jh...> wrote:
>>>>>> "DS" == David Scherfgen via Maxima-discuss <max...@li...> writes:
>
>DS> Maybe we could add an option to the configure script to tell Maxima
>DS> to compile all share packages?
>
>+ℵ₁
>
>Distribution packaging would especially benefit from that.
>
>-JimC
>-- 
>James Cloos <cl...@jh...>
>            OpenPGP: https://jhcloos.com/0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6.asc
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Maxima-discuss mailing list
>Max...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss

[Maxima-discuss] Maxima for statistics or other topics, was: Maxima by example, volume 2 : Guide to Descriptive Statistics for One-Variable Series

[Robert D. <rob...@gm...>]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2026 at 3:12 PM David Kirkby via Maxima-discuss
<max...@li...> wrote:

> Is Maxima a good tool for statistics? I would have thought R a much better tool for that.

For the record, I use Maxima as an all-purpose tool for basic data
analysis. Some days that's more symbolic and some days it's more
numerical, but it's not necessary to draw a distinct line.

For example, one could construct an expression for a statistical
function of some values, most of which are numbers but one is a
variable, and then study the properties of that as a function of the
free variable.

I also use Maxima to construct expressions which represent stuff to be
computed, and then generate code for other systems -- Python, Matlab,
and Swift have all been output targets.

I agree that R has a particularly rich package ecosystem, with many
very valuable specialized packages. But there's still a lot of stuff
which can be handled well by Maxima.

best

Robert

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Compiling Maxima with GCL 2.7.2 pre-release results in empty executable

[Robert D. <rob...@gm...>]

Hi David, well, the problem seems to have been that there were some
files left over from a previous build a couple of months ago. I
deleted all the files from the previous build and tried it again and
it succeeded.

I don't know what got messed up -- some combination of make,
defsystem, and/or GCL -- but anyway a clean build fixed the problem.

Robert

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Robert D. <rob...@gm...>]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 5:18 PM Raymond Toy <toy...@gm...> wrote:

> I don’t find this appropriate for new code. Neither MIT, UT, nor William Schelter had anything to do with it. (Like Barton’s hypergeometric.lisp, I think.) Probably just remove those lines and leave the Maxima project line.

Agreed that we should avoid giving credit to anyone who didn't
actually work on the code.

About crediting the Maxima project, I think we should avoid that, as
it doesn't exist in a legal sense, so it can't be credited with
authorship. I think it's OK to be vague about who the authors are.
Something like "copyright 2000-2026 by the authors of this file."
Exactly who that is can be discovered in the commit log.

FWIW

Robert

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Raymond T. <toy...@gm...>]

On 4/22/26 2:13 PM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:

> Under current copyright law, a copyright statement is not required: 
> works are "born copyrighted" and no copyright notice is required.
> And, by the way, in the old "notice" regime, the "(c)" was neither 
> required nor meaningful. It was only necessary if there wasn't room 
> for the full word "copyright", but the only legally accepted version 
> was the exact symbol ©.
>
> The copyright notice serves to warn people that the work is copyrighted.
> But just as importantly, we should notify people that it is licensed 
> under the GPL. Every file should include a reference to the license, 
> something like this:
>
> ;;; -*-  Mode: Lisp; Package: Maxima; Syntax: Common-Lisp; Base: 10 
> -*- ;;;;
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> ;;;                ;;;;;
> ;;;  Copyright 1984,1987 by William Schelter, University of Texas      
>  ;;;;;
> ;;;  Copyright 1982 Massachusetts Institute of Technology              
> ;;;;;
> ;;;  Copyright 2000-2026 The Maxima Project ;;;;;
> ;;;  The Maxima Project includes those listed in AUTHORS              
>  ;;;;;
> ;;;                                              ;;;;;
> ;;;  Licensed under the Gnu General Public License (GPL), version 2    
> ;;;;;
> ;;;  The full text of the GPL is in the file COPYING                  
>  ;;;;;
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

This is fine for old code or for the new files I’ve created that 
basically contain old code. It’s also appropriate for existing files 
because I suspect all files have been modified since the original DOE 
copy that Bill had.

I don’t find this appropriate for new code. Neither MIT, UT, nor William 
Schelter had anything to do with it. (Like Barton’s hypergeometric.lisp, 
I think.) Probably just remove those lines and leave the Maxima project 
line. Maybe a URL as well to the website. And I suspect AUTHORS is not 
completely true.

>
> And we should include the line about 2000-2026, because otherwise 
> someone might think (incorrectly) that the copyright lapsed N years 
> after 1987.
>
> We should include the updated text in all our files.
>
> Adding the line about Copyright 2000-2026 The Maxima Project clarifies 
> who the legal owners are, which is necessary if we ever have to sue 
> anyone.
> IANAL and I'm sure this isn't perfect, but I think it's better than 
> what we have.
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 3:58 PM Raymond Toy <toy...@gm...> wrote:
>
>     While working on breaking some circular dependencies, I need to
>     create some new files. What is the appropriate header for these
>     files. We seem to have a lot of styles, and of course, we have the
>     old original version:
>
>     |;;; -*- Mode: Lisp; Package: Maxima; Syntax: Common-Lisp; Base:
>     10 -*- ;;;;
>     ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>     ;;; The data in this file contains enhancements. ;;;;; ;;; ;;;;;
>     ;;; Copyright (c) 1984,1987 by William Schelter,University of
>     Texas ;;;;; ;;; All rights reserved ;;;;;
>     ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>     ;;; (c) Copyright 1982 Massachusetts Institute of Technology ;;;
>     ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>     |
>
>     The mode line is fine. But the rest is really rather outdated. I’m
>     not proposing we change these in existing files, but we should
>     have a standardized one for new files. There should probably be a
>     copyright statement. I guess a mention of the copyright in COPYING
>     would work?
>
>     &#8203;
>     _______________________________________________
>     Maxima-discuss mailing list
>     Max...@li...
>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>
&#8203;

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Robert D. <rob...@gm...>]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 2:15 PM Stavros Macrakis <mac...@gm...> wrote:

> ;;;  Copyright 2000-2026 The Maxima Project                            ;;;;;

I wouldn't make any reference to a "Maxima Project" since there is no
entity by that name. It's more accurate to say the code is copyrighted
by its authors, unspecified in the comment header. I suppose for
completeness one could tell readers to look at the revision log.

Also not a lawyer,

Robert

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Richard F. <fa...@gm...>]

The existing copyright notices as well as the proposed one are kind of
bulky. Can they all be
"by reference" making them each a really really short statement? They
already refer to COPYING,
and to AUTHORS so they are not self-contained.


I find the copyright notices with Bill Schelter's name and U. Texas so
prominent on each file
possibly misleading to those who might assume that Bill wrote the contents
of the
file, as opposed to what he did do:  extract the code from the Dept of
Energy
used his name and UT as place-holder and put it into GPL (with DOE
permission, of course).

  There presumably IS code that Bill authored, but probably not marked as
such.


(Some group theory? some maclisp-to-common-lisp macros? a bunch of code we
do not use -- having to
do with Texas Instruments' Lisp Machine.)

How about
;;; -*-  Mode: Lisp; Package: Maxima; Syntax: Common-Lisp; Base: 10 -*- ;;;;
;;; For copyright information see COPYRIGHT. Licensed under GPL version 2 ;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

I too am not a lawyer.  I wonder if there is there a need for a legal
entity "the Maxima Project"?

RJF





On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 5:14 PM Stavros Macrakis <mac...@gm...> wrote:

> Under current copyright law, a copyright statement is not required: works
> are "born copyrighted" and no copyright notice is required.
> And, by the way, in the old "notice" regime, the "(c)" was neither
> required nor meaningful. It was only necessary if there wasn't room for the
> full word "copyright", but the only legally accepted version was the exact
> symbol ©.
>
> The copyright notice serves to warn people that the work is copyrighted.
> But just as importantly, we should notify people that it is licensed under
> the GPL. Every file should include a reference to the license, something
> like this:
>
> ;;; -*-  Mode: Lisp; Package: Maxima; Syntax: Common-Lisp; Base: 10 -*-
> ;;;;
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> ;;;
>  ;;;;;
> ;;;  Copyright 1984,1987 by William Schelter, University of Texas
>  ;;;;;
> ;;;  Copyright 1982 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> ;;;;;
> ;;;  Copyright 2000-2026 The Maxima Project
> ;;;;;
> ;;;  The Maxima Project includes those listed in AUTHORS
>  ;;;;;
> ;;;
>  ;;;;;
> ;;;  Licensed under the Gnu General Public License (GPL), version 2
> ;;;;;
> ;;;  The full text of the GPL is in the file COPYING
>  ;;;;;
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> And we should include the line about 2000-2026, because otherwise someone
> might think (incorrectly) that the copyright lapsed N years after 1987.
>
> We should include the updated text in all our files.
>
> Adding the line about Copyright 2000-2026 The Maxima Project clarifies who
> the legal owners are, which is necessary if we ever have to sue anyone.
> IANAL and I'm sure this isn't perfect, but I think it's better than what
> we have.
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 3:58 PM Raymond Toy <toy...@gm...> wrote:
>
>> While working on breaking some circular dependencies, I need to create
>> some new files. What is the appropriate header for these files. We seem to
>> have a lot of styles, and of course, we have the old original version:
>>
>>
>> ;;; -*-  Mode: Lisp; Package: Maxima; Syntax: Common-Lisp; Base: 10 -*- ;;;;
>> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>> ;;;     The data in this file contains enhancements.                   ;;;;;
>> ;;;                                                                    ;;;;;
>> ;;;  Copyright (c) 1984,1987 by William Schelter,University of Texas   ;;;;;
>> ;;;     All rights reserved                                            ;;;;;
>> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>> ;;;     (c) Copyright 1982 Massachusetts Institute of Technology         ;;;
>> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>>
>> The mode line is fine. But the rest is really rather outdated. I’m not
>> proposing we change these in existing files, but we should have a
>> standardized one for new files. There should probably be a copyright
>> statement. I guess a mention of the copyright in COPYING would work?
>> &#8203;
>> _______________________________________________
>> Maxima-discuss mailing list
>> Max...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Stavros M. <mac...@gm...>]

Under current copyright law, a copyright statement is not required: works
are "born copyrighted" and no copyright notice is required.
And, by the way, in the old "notice" regime, the "(c)" was neither required
nor meaningful. It was only necessary if there wasn't room for the full
word "copyright", but the only legally accepted version was the exact
symbol ©.

The copyright notice serves to warn people that the work is copyrighted.
But just as importantly, we should notify people that it is licensed under
the GPL. Every file should include a reference to the license, something
like this:

;;; -*-  Mode: Lisp; Package: Maxima; Syntax: Common-Lisp; Base: 10 -*- ;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;                                                                    ;;;;;
;;;  Copyright 1984,1987 by William Schelter, University of Texas
 ;;;;;
;;;  Copyright 1982 Massachusetts Institute of Technology              ;;;;;
;;;  Copyright 2000-2026 The Maxima Project                            ;;;;;
;;;  The Maxima Project includes those listed in AUTHORS               ;;;;;
;;;                                                                    ;;;;;
;;;  Licensed under the Gnu General Public License (GPL), version 2    ;;;;;
;;;  The full text of the GPL is in the file COPYING
 ;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

And we should include the line about 2000-2026, because otherwise someone
might think (incorrectly) that the copyright lapsed N years after 1987.

We should include the updated text in all our files.

Adding the line about Copyright 2000-2026 The Maxima Project clarifies who
the legal owners are, which is necessary if we ever have to sue anyone.
IANAL and I'm sure this isn't perfect, but I think it's better than what we
have.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 3:58 PM Raymond Toy <toy...@gm...> wrote:

> While working on breaking some circular dependencies, I need to create
> some new files. What is the appropriate header for these files. We seem to
> have a lot of styles, and of course, we have the old original version:
>
>
> ;;; -*-  Mode: Lisp; Package: Maxima; Syntax: Common-Lisp; Base: 10 -*- ;;;;
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> ;;;     The data in this file contains enhancements.                   ;;;;;
> ;;;                                                                    ;;;;;
> ;;;  Copyright (c) 1984,1987 by William Schelter,University of Texas   ;;;;;
> ;;;     All rights reserved                                            ;;;;;
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> ;;;     (c) Copyright 1982 Massachusetts Institute of Technology         ;;;
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> The mode line is fine. But the rest is really rather outdated. I’m not
> proposing we change these in existing files, but we should have a
> standardized one for new files. There should probably be a copyright
> statement. I guess a mention of the copyright in COPYING would work?
> &#8203;
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Barton W. <wi...@un...>]

Suggestion: Something like

;;; -*- mode: lisp; package: maxima; syntax: common-lisp; base: 10 -*-
;;;
;;; This file has modifications to the original MIT code.
;;;
;;; Copyright (c) 1982
;;;     Massachusetts Institute of Technology
;;;
;;; Copyright (c) 1984, 1987
;;;     William Schelter, University of Texas
;;;
;;; This file is part of Maxima and is distributed under the terms
;;; of the GNU General Public License; see the file COPYING.


  1.
The claim "The data in this file contains enhancements" is unclear and vague.
  2.
My understand is that "all rights reserved" is outdated and a historical artifact.

________________________________
From: Raymond Toy <toy...@gm...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 2:57 PM
To: <max...@li...> <max...@li...>
Subject: [Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

Caution: Non-NU Email


While working on breaking some circular dependencies, I need to create some new files. What is the appropriate header for these files. We seem to have a lot of styles, and of course, we have the old original version:


;;; -*-  Mode: Lisp; Package: Maxima; Syntax: Common-Lisp; Base: 10 -*- ;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;     The data in this file contains enhancements.                   ;;;;;
;;;                                                                    ;;;;;
;;;  Copyright (c) 1984,1987 by William Schelter,University of Texas   ;;;;;
;;;     All rights reserved                                            ;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;     (c) Copyright 1982 Massachusetts Institute of Technology         ;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;


The mode line is fine. But the rest is really rather outdated. I’m not proposing we change these in existing files, but we should have a standardized one for new files. There should probably be a copyright statement. I guess a mention of the copyright in COPYING would work?

&#8203;

Re: [Maxima-discuss] GCL slow reading files

[James C. <cl...@jh...>]

>>>>> "DS" == David Scherfgen via Maxima-discuss <max...@li...> writes:

DS> Maybe we could add an option to the configure script to tell Maxima
DS> to compile all share packages?

+ℵ₁

Distribution packaging would especially benefit from that.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cl...@jh...>
            OpenPGP: https://jhcloos.com/0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6.asc

[Maxima-discuss] Standardized file headers?

[Raymond T. <toy...@gm...>]

While working on breaking some circular dependencies, I need to create 
some new files. What is the appropriate header for these files. We seem 
to have a lot of styles, and of course, we have the old original version:

|;;; -*- Mode: Lisp; Package: Maxima; Syntax: Common-Lisp; Base: 10 -*- 
;;;; 
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 
;;; The data in this file contains enhancements. ;;;;; ;;; ;;;;; ;;; 
Copyright (c) 1984,1987 by William Schelter,University of Texas ;;;;; 
;;; All rights reserved ;;;;; 
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 
;;; (c) Copyright 1982 Massachusetts Institute of Technology ;;; 
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 
|

The mode line is fine. But the rest is really rather outdated. I’m not 
proposing we change these in existing files, but we should have a 
standardized one for new files. There should probably be a copyright 
statement. I guess a mention of the copyright in COPYING would work?

​

Re: [Maxima-discuss] GCL slow reading files

[David S. <d.s...@go...>]

It seems that this has been fixed by Camm recently. I now get 0.000 seconds
and 0 bytes allocated.
Loading the "draw" package is still slow, but only when it's loaded for the
first time. After that, it just loads the binary.
Maybe we could add an option to the configure script to tell Maxima to
compile all share packages?

Best regards
David Scherfgen

Am Fr., 10. Apr. 2026 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Raymond Toy <
toy...@gm...>:

> On 4/10/26 12:27 AM, David Scherfgen wrote:
>
> Raymond Toy <toy...@gm...> schrieb am Fr., 10. Apr. 2026, 00:27:
>
>> On 4/9/26 8:33 AM, Leo Butler wrote:
>>
>> To see what I mean, start a fresh maxima+gcl build and do:
>>
>> showtime:true $
>> load(draw);
>>
>> On my fairly fast machine, ecl takes about 3.3 sec. gcl takes 65 sec;
>> ccl64, 0.57 sec; cmucl, 2.2 sec. Ccl is known for having a very, very fast
>> compiler.
>>
> On my machine, GCL takes 2.4 seconds to load "draw". But it uses an older
> version of GCL, namely 2.6.14. Maybe the "slowness" was introduced with
> 2.7.x.
>
> I could confirm that GCL 2.6.14 too is quite slow in reading files.
> Reading a 50 MB file took more than 4 seconds on a lightning fast NVMe SSD
> with ZFS and a huge cache on top.
>
> Wow, it’s much worse with 2.7.2:
>
>
> (with-open-file (s "doc/info/maxima.info-1" :direction :input :element-type '(unsigned-byte 8))
>   (let* ((len (file-length s))
>          (buf (make-array len :element-type '(unsigned-byte 8))))
>     (time (read-sequence buf s))))
>
> real time       :     23.040 secs
> run-gbc time    :     19.840 secs
> child run time  :      0.000 secs
> gbc time        :      0.500 secs
> allocation      :       1357 Mbytes
>
> 1005136
>
> maxima.info-1 is just a million bytes. Does that mean gcl spent 19.8 out
> of 23 sec doing GC? But even 4 sec seems really, really slow. (I’m using an
> external SSD for this. But cmucl does the same test in less than a
> millisecond or so.)
> &#8203;
>

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Compiling Maxima with GCL 2.7.2 pre-release results in empty executable

[David S. <d.s...@go...>]

Sorry, I meant this tag:
https://cgit.git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gcl.git/tag/?h=Version_2_7_2pre16

Am Mi., 22. Apr. 2026 um 19:08 Uhr schrieb Raymond Toy <
toy...@gm...>:

> On 4/22/26 9:32 AM, David Scherfgen via Maxima-discuss wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> I tried the same thing today, with success, using the normal sequence of
> commands: ./bootstrap, ./configure --enable-gcl and make, then I ran
> ./maxima-local and ran the test suite. 2 tests passed that were expected
> to fail, no unexpected failures.
>
> I noticed that too. Haven’t got around to fixing that or verifying that
> those are also fixed with 2.7.1
>
> I used the GCL 2.7.1-17 pre-release branch.
>
> Which version is this? I used the tag Version_2_7_2pre15 for my build and
> tests a while ago. (I find it confusing that gcl --version says “GCL
> 2.7.1 git tag Version_2_7_2pre15”)
>
>
> Best regards
> David
>
> Am Di., 14. Apr. 2026 um 21:41 Uhr schrieb Robert Dodier <
> rob...@gm...>:
>
>> I built GCL from the 2.7.2 pre-release branch and that was apparently
>> successful.
>>
>> I compiled current Maxima from Git with that GCL, and although the
>> process was apparently successful, it resulted in a maxima executable
>> that had only a few Maxima symbols in it -- stuff related to autoconf
>> variables and the like.
>>
>> I noticed it because CL-USER::RUN was missing, but that's just one of
>> many items; almost everything is missing.
>>
>> To be precise, I did something like
>>
>> (do-symbols (s (find-package "MAXIMA"))
>>   (if (equalp (symbol-package s) (find-package "MAXIMA")) (print s)))
>>
>> Maybe the Maxima symbols ended up in some other package? I didn't try
>> to figure it out.
>>
>> If anyone has any ideas what's going on, I would be interested to hear.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Maxima-discuss mailing list
>> Max...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing lis...@li...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>
> &#8203;
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Compiling Maxima with GCL 2.7.2 pre-release results in empty executable

[Raymond T. <toy...@gm...>]

On 4/22/26 9:32 AM, David Scherfgen via Maxima-discuss wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> I tried the same thing today, with success, using the normal sequence 
> of commands: ./bootstrap, ./configure --enable-gcl and make, then I 
> ran ./maxima-local and ran the test suite. 2 tests passed that were 
> expected to fail, no unexpected failures.
I noticed that too. Haven’t got around to fixing that or verifying that 
those are also fixed with 2.7.1
> I used the GCL 2.7.1-17 pre-release branch.
Which version is this? I used the tag Version_2_7_2pre15 for my build 
and tests a while ago. (I find it confusing that |gcl --version| says 
“GCL 2.7.1 git tag Version_2_7_2pre15”)
>
> Best regards
> David
>
> Am Di., 14. Apr. 2026 um 21:41 Uhr schrieb Robert Dodier 
> <rob...@gm...>:
>
>     I built GCL from the 2.7.2 pre-release branch and that was apparently
>     successful.
>
>     I compiled current Maxima from Git with that GCL, and although the
>     process was apparently successful, it resulted in a maxima executable
>     that had only a few Maxima symbols in it -- stuff related to autoconf
>     variables and the like.
>
>     I noticed it because CL-USER::RUN was missing, but that's just one of
>     many items; almost everything is missing.
>
>     To be precise, I did something like
>
>     (do-symbols (s (find-package "MAXIMA"))
>       (if (equalp (symbol-package s) (find-package "MAXIMA")) (print s)))
>
>     Maybe the Maxima symbols ended up in some other package? I didn't try
>     to figure it out.
>
>     If anyone has any ideas what's going on, I would be interested to
>     hear.
>
>     Robert
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Maxima-discuss mailing list
>     Max...@li...
>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
&#8203;

Re: [Maxima-discuss] Compiling Maxima with GCL 2.7.2 pre-release results in empty executable

[David S. <d.s...@go...>]

Hi Robert,

I tried the same thing today, with success, using the normal sequence of
commands: ./bootstrap, ./configure --enable-gcl and make, then I ran
./maxima-local and ran the test suite. 2 tests passed that were expected to
fail, no unexpected failures.
I used the GCL 2.7.1-17 pre-release branch.

Best regards
David

Am Di., 14. Apr. 2026 um 21:41 Uhr schrieb Robert Dodier <
rob...@gm...>:

> I built GCL from the 2.7.2 pre-release branch and that was apparently
> successful.
>
> I compiled current Maxima from Git with that GCL, and although the
> process was apparently successful, it resulted in a maxima executable
> that had only a few Maxima symbols in it -- stuff related to autoconf
> variables and the like.
>
> I noticed it because CL-USER::RUN was missing, but that's just one of
> many items; almost everything is missing.
>
> To be precise, I did something like
>
> (do-symbols (s (find-package "MAXIMA"))
>   (if (equalp (symbol-package s) (find-package "MAXIMA")) (print s)))
>
> Maybe the Maxima symbols ended up in some other package? I didn't try
> to figure it out.
>
> If anyone has any ideas what's going on, I would be interested to hear.
>
> Robert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>

Re: [Maxima-discuss] magicl

[Chris D. <cm...@ca...>]

Mixing numerical with symbolic seems quite interesting so I tried to 
cobble together a bunch of demo notebooks that show that maxima isn’t 
just for algebra.

https://cmsd2.github.io/maxima-demos/

There are probably bugs so maybe still treat as PoC.

Chris.


------ Original Message ------
>From "Chris Dawes via Maxima-discuss" 
<max...@li...>
To "<max...@li...>" 
<max...@li...>
Date 20/04/2026 10:58:26
Subject Re: [Maxima-discuss] magicl

>
>Seems entirely doable to implement data frames as well.
>Also supports sql queries if you have duckdb installed.
>
>https://github.com/cmsd2/maxima-dataframes
>
>https://cmsd2.github.io/maxima-dataframes/
>
>Not sure if it helps with the R discussion, but it seems like there’s 
>plenty of good stuff in the CL universe that could help.
>
>C.
>
>
>------ Original Message ------
>From "Chris Dawes" <cm...@ca...>
>To "<max...@li...>" 
><max...@li...>
>Date 18/04/2026 17:14:54
>Subject magicl
>
>>Is this possibly pushing maxima to do something that’s better done in 
>>numpy?
>>I don’t know
>>
>>Anyway, it seems like it’s mostly possible to wrap CL’s magicl to 
>>create a decent performing numpy equivalent in maxima. 
>>Proof-of-concept only mind.
>>
>>https://github.com/cmsd2/maxima-numerics
>>
>>https://cmsd2.github.io/maxima-numerics/
>>
>>Chris.
>>