Menu
▾
▴
openclips-development — Development discussions for OpenCLIPS
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2004 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(6) |
Oct
(10) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
|---|
|
From: Glen M. <mc...@ne...> - 2004-10-08 21:58:53
|
Hey there, I set up a basic website to get things started. http://openclips.sourceforge.net . We should momentarily have www.openclips.org and openclips.org pointing there as well. thnx, ~Glen |
|
From: Tim C. <tw...@sh...> - 2004-10-07 17:39:45
|
On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 08:08, Thomas Sutton wrote: > I suppose I'll say yes to the GPL then. I can see the benefits, my > only real objection is my distaste for the grandstanding and rhetoric > of the FSF. I agree with that position but I choose not to participate in it. > As I'm the only holdout that makes us officially GPL'd > doesn't it? Thanks. Changes made. Cheers, Tim |
|
From: Thomas S. <ths...@gm...> - 2004-10-07 15:08:50
|
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 06:48:52 -0700, Tim Cook <tw...@sh...> wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 03:31, Michael Giordano wrote:
>
> > >2) We're debating the BSD license versus going with the GPL, do you have a
> > >preference?
> >
> > The BSD license certainly seems simpler. I guess the question is "Do we
> > want to install a mechanism to 'force' other developers to share their
> > work?". In the end it makes no difference to me. As long as the
> > license keeps me from getting sued :-)
>
> My position on the license is that there is a public domain version that
> is being maintained for those that want a free (as in beer) no
> restrictions version. We can't change that but we can use all of what
> has been done so far just as they commercial versions have done.
>
> With the GPL we get the other extreme. This may/should attract others
> that want to participate where they know their efforts will contribute
> to the common good without being hi-jacked as the PD version allows.
My main objection/s to the GPL is that:
a) It is too long: I can't read and understand (IANAL after all).
b) Choosing the GPL seems to be as much a political statement as a
licencing action,
what with all the rhetoric that goes with the FSF and GPL.
I do agree with the points Tim has raised, there is already the PD
version of CLIPS for people to use for any purpose, so we are free to
pick a more restrictive licence, so to speak. At this point it is
fairly moot, but we need to sort it out now before there are
contributors to ask later.
I suppose I'll say yes to the GPL then. I can see the benefits, my
only real objection is my distaste for the grandstanding and rhetoric
of the FSF. As I'm the only holdout that makes us officially GPL'd
doesn't it?
Cheers,
Thomas
|
|
From: Tim C. <tw...@sh...> - 2004-10-07 14:51:29
|
On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 03:31, Michael Giordano wrote: > >2) We're debating the BSD license versus going with the GPL, do you have a > >preference? > > The BSD license certainly seems simpler. I guess the question is "Do we > want to install a mechanism to 'force' other developers to share their > work?". In the end it makes no difference to me. As long as the > license keeps me from getting sued :-) My position on the license is that there is a public domain version that is being maintained for those that want a free (as in beer) no restrictions version. We can't change that but we can use all of what has been done so far just as they commercial versions have done. With the GPL we get the other extreme. This may/should attract others that want to participate where they know their efforts will contribute to the common good without being hi-jacked as the PD version allows. My vote is for the GPL if you can't tell. <g> Regards, Tim |
|
From: Michael G. <ci...@ho...> - 2004-10-07 10:33:05
|
>Welcome Mike, > >Great to have someone with your CLIPS background on board. Sorry for the >delay in responding to your introduction. > >A couple of quick questions for you: >1) What is your sourceforge id so I can add you to the project? My SourceForge ID is cissmjg. >2) We're debating the BSD license versus going with the GPL, do you have a >preference? The BSD license certainly seems simpler. I guess the question is "Do we want to install a mechanism to 'force' other developers to share their work?". In the end it makes no difference to me. As long as the license keeps me from getting sued :-) >3) Can you tell us what you see as your role on the project? Are you a >coder? Designer? Consultant/Mentor? Technical Writer ;-)? Coder ... yes Designer ... maybe Technical Writer ... whats THAT?? ;-) I also do a fair amount of web work during the day. >4) How's your spanish? As good as http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en can make it ;-) >I'm wanting to know more about BWCLIPS >(http://www.gsi.dit.upm.es/~lssii/pexpert/ ). Specifically, about licensing >first of all, then more about the backward chaining mechanisms, any CLIPS >syntax extensions, etc. If anyone on the list is proficient in spanish . . >. please take a look. The above page translates pretty well in google. There is a facility to translate chunks of text. Regards, Mike G. >Best Regards, >~Glen M. > >On 30-Sep-04, at 2:52 PM, Michael Giordano wrote: > >>Hello all, >> >>My name is Mike Giordano. My previous experience with CLIPS includes : >> >> - ODBC interface with CLIPS >> - CLIPS port to the web (WebCLIPS) >> - Various contributions to the MFC wrapper for the CLIPS DLL >> >>I look forward to working with you all. >> >>Mike G. >> >> >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal >>Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us >> Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out >>more >> http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl >>_______________________________________________ >>Openclips-development mailing list >> Ope...@li... >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openclips-development >> >>-- >> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 7.0.271 / Virus Database: 264.9.8 - Release Date: 9/28/2004 >> |
|
From: Thomas S. <ths...@gm...> - 2004-10-07 02:39:13
|
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:06:14 -0700, Tim Cook <tw...@sh...> wrote: > On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 16:32, Thomas Sutton wrote: > > > The FDL? > > > > Isn't there supposed to be a lot of controversy over the FDL and just > > how non-free it is? Are the debian people still frothing at the mouth > > over it? If they are, they probably won't ship OpenCLIPS (or they'll > > just re-write our documentation if they do). > > Where Debian people are concerned there is always controversy. <g> > (btw: Debian is all I run on production servers) Personally, I've never had much time for Debian. If I was that worried about "freedom", I'd use BSD :-) > If they publish a Debian Documentation License I/we will read it and > consider it. Otherwise, is there another viable choice? Do we really need a documentation licence? Documentation is a copyrightable work in the traditional sense, so I imagine the moral rights of authors, etc still apply. What more is needed? > > On the BWCLIPS front: it builds against TCL/TK though I'm not sure > > which is in control, so to speak. Actually, strike that, CLIPS is > > using Tcl_Eval to do stuff to widgets, so I'm guessing the user > > interface is in TCL/TK and the CLIPS engine is in control (much/most > > of the time). > > > > It is also missing a file clsltpsr.c and mentions modifying line 263 > > in the 'fish translation of the README. > > > > I couldn't find any file header comments, never mind anything that > > looked like a copyright statement in any of the files I looked at. > Given this then, is it possible to compare it to the current OpenCLIPS > CVS and get anything useful? It generates a really big diff and there have been a lot of changes since they BWCLIPS was made. The latest date on the files from the tar is 20/12/1999 and the latest date on the files from the CLIPS distro is 07/22/94 (version 6.10). A lot of the things in the diff look to be ordering of declarations, whitespace at the end of lines, etc so maybe running indent over both trees and diffing again might be more useful. I won't have time to acutally do this until next week some time. If we could get a copy of the official distribution they based their work on, we'd be able to get a patch that we could port forward, but I'm not sure how much it'll get us. By the look of it, only the interface, and the built-in editor have touch TCL, so there might be useful stuff in there, all we'd need to do is make it work with environments. > Would we be better off just ignoring it? Depends on if we can find someone who knows spanish :-) I think that if they have implemented a full backward chaining extension to CLIPS and it is of suitable quality, it may be worth the effort getting a useable patch to port forward to use in our code. > Regards, > > > Tim Cheers, Thomas Sutton |
|
From: Tim C. <tw...@sh...> - 2004-10-07 02:07:44
|
On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 16:32, Thomas Sutton wrote: > The FDL? > > Isn't there supposed to be a lot of controversy over the FDL and just > how non-free it is? Are the debian people still frothing at the mouth > over it? If they are, they probably won't ship OpenCLIPS (or they'll > just re-write our documentation if they do). Where Debian people are concerned there is always controversy. <g> (btw: Debian is all I run on production servers) If they publish a Debian Documentation License I/we will read it and consider it. Otherwise, is there another viable choice? > On the BWCLIPS front: it builds against TCL/TK though I'm not sure > which is in control, so to speak. Actually, strike that, CLIPS is > using Tcl_Eval to do stuff to widgets, so I'm guessing the user > interface is in TCL/TK and the CLIPS engine is in control (much/most > of the time). > > It is also missing a file clsltpsr.c and mentions modifying line 263 > in the 'fish translation of the README. > > I couldn't find any file header comments, never mind anything that > looked like a copyright statement in any of the files I looked at. Given this then, is it possible to compare it to the current OpenCLIPS CVS and get anything useful? Would we be better off just ignoring it? Regards, Tim |
|
From: Thomas S. <ths...@gm...> - 2004-10-06 23:32:55
|
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:36:34 -0700, Tim Cook <tw...@sh...> wrote: > I have placed a copy of the FDL and the appropriate copyright statement > to insert into your documentation for this project in the Docs section > on SourceForge. > > Cheers, > Tim The FDL? Isn't there supposed to be a lot of controversy over the FDL and just how non-free it is? Are the debian people still frothing at the mouth over it? If they are, they probably won't ship OpenCLIPS (or they'll just re-write our documentation if they do). On the BWCLIPS front: it builds against TCL/TK though I'm not sure which is in control, so to speak. Actually, strike that, CLIPS is using Tcl_Eval to do stuff to widgets, so I'm guessing the user interface is in TCL/TK and the CLIPS engine is in control (much/most of the time). It is also missing a file clsltpsr.c and mentions modifying line 263 in the 'fish translation of the README. I couldn't find any file header comments, never mind anything that looked like a copyright statement in any of the files I looked at. Cheers, Thomas Sutton |
|
From: Tim C. <tw...@sh...> - 2004-10-06 22:36:45
|
I have placed a copy of the FDL and the appropriate copyright statement to insert into your documentation for this project in the Docs section on SourceForge. Cheers, Tim |
|
From: Glen M. <mc...@ne...> - 2004-10-06 21:17:29
|
Welcome Mike, Great to have someone with your CLIPS background on board. Sorry for=20 the delay in responding to your introduction. A couple of quick questions for you: 1) What is your sourceforge id so I can add you to the project? 2) We're debating the BSD license versus going with the GPL, do you=20 have a preference? 3) Can you tell us what you see as your role on the project? Are you a=20= coder? Designer? Consultant/Mentor? Technical Writer ;-)? 4) How's your spanish? I'm wanting to know more about BWCLIPS=20 (http://www.gsi.dit.upm.es/~lssii/pexpert/ ). Specifically, about=20 licensing first of all, then more about the backward chaining=20 mechanisms, any CLIPS syntax extensions, etc. If anyone on the list is=20= proficient in spanish . . . please take a look. Best Regards, ~Glen M. On 30-Sep-04, at 2:52 PM, Michael Giordano wrote: > Hello all, > > My name is Mike Giordano. My previous experience with CLIPS includes : > > =A0=A0 - ODBC interface with CLIPS > =A0=A0 - CLIPS port to the web (WebCLIPS) > =A0=A0 - Various contributions to the MFC wrapper for the CLIPS DLL > > I look forward to working with you all. > > Mike G. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on=20 > ITManagersJournal > Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give=20= > us > Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find=20 > out more > http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl > _______________________________________________ > Openclips-development mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openclips-development > > -- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 7.0.271 / Virus Database: 264.9.8 - Release Date: 9/28/2004 > =A0 |
|
From: Michael G. <ci...@ho...> - 2004-09-30 21:54:40
|
Hello all, My name is Mike Giordano. My previous experience with CLIPS includes : - ODBC interface with CLIPS - CLIPS port to the web (WebCLIPS) - Various contributions to the MFC wrapper for the CLIPS DLL I look forward to working with you all. Mike G. |
|
From: jlegris <jl...@te...> - 2004-09-27 16:06:57
|
-- Joel Legris Computer Programmer/IT analyst University of British Columbia, Dept Family Practice EGADSS Office Pacific Spirit Community Health Centre 2110 West 43rd Avenue Vancouver, BC V6M 2E1 604.267.3986 |
|
From: Glen M. <mc...@ne...> - 2004-09-23 21:57:36
|
Hey Folks, I downloaded the openclips source and had a look at the TODO file.=20 Looks great. Let's get cracking. I'll get started on some of the more administrative stuff: 1) Identify the files with project name and license (well . . . I'll=20 sort out the license first) 2) Change all the documentation to refer to us 3) Create a basic webpage for http://openclips.sourceforge.net 4) Snag the urls "openclips.org" and "www.openclips.org" and point them=20= to the sf site 5) Start reverse engineering the source Thomas, will you look into the warnings and the headers? (The first two=20= items on your TODO list). If anyone else on the list has time for an=20 action item please speak up. Then we should be ready for a release! I'm very much in favor of keeping the core engine in ANSI C so that it=20= will be as portable as possible. Let me know what you think. Best Regards, ~Glen On 21-Sep-04, at 9:25 AM, <ths...@po...> wrote: > On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:27:05 -0700 Tim Cook wrote: > > The OpenCLIPS project has been approved on SourceForge.=A0 The=20 > relevant > > links are below. > About time :-) I've been getting sick of seeing "Invalid Project". > > > Thomas Sutton will be uploading the base source code that we will be > > starting from.=A0 > Done. It is in the openclips module under the projects cvsroot. > > The CLIPS source (version 6.22) is up with the test cases distributed=20= > on > the ghg.net site (though they don't have a "real" testing framework > written yet). There are also some examples, also from somewhere on > ghg.net. The test cases and examples I have included presuming that=20 > they > are provided under the same conditions as CLIPS itself but I haven't=20= > checked. > > > Once the package has been verified that it installs and runs, I=20 > propose > > that the first order of business is to properly identify all files=20= > with > > the project name and distribution license and immediately create a > > release of OpenCLIPS. > > > Thoughts? > At the moment, the LICENCE document in CVS is a BSD-like licence (the > FreeBSD copyright notice s/FreeBSD/OpenCLIPS/) so I changed the=20 > projects > licence in the sf.net catagorisation, we can change it back later if > needed, but I'd prefer to keep OpenCLIPS as free as possible, in line > with the original CLIPS release into the public domain. > > There is also a brief TODO in CVS with a number of administrivia and=20= > some > preliminary cleanup work that we'll need to do. It should really be > expanded into a roadmap of some description. I think it would be wise=20= > to > have a rough sketch of the future directions and a first release out > before announcing the project widely (e.g. on the CLIPS mailing=20 > lists). > > > Project Page: > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/openclips/ > > Mailing list: > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openclips-development > > > Cheers, > > Tim > > Cheers, > Thomas Sutton > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 > Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement=20= > on > who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. > Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php > _______________________________________________ > Openclips-development mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openclips-development > > -- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 7.0.271 / Virus Database: 264.9.4 - Release Date: 9/21/2004 > =A0 |
|
From: Tim C. <tw...@sh...> - 2004-09-21 21:22:26
|
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 09:25, ths...@po... wrote: > On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:27:05 -0700 Tim Cook wrote: > > The OpenCLIPS project has been approved on SourceForge. The relevant > > links are below. > About time :-) I've been getting sick of seeing "Invalid Project". It was strange. They asked me to redo the technical description and I had wanted to wait until we discussed it further before settling on a license. But when I chose one and drafted a new description they were happy. It took so long because I have been traveling and hadn't checked on it lately. > > Thomas Sutton will be uploading the base source code that we will be > > starting from. > Done. It is in the openclips module under the projects cvsroot. Excellent. Thank You! > The CLIPS source (version 6.22) is up with the test cases distributed on > the ghg.net site (though they don't have a "real" testing framework > written yet). There are also some examples, also from somewhere on > ghg.net. The test cases and examples I have included presuming that they > are provided under the same conditions as CLIPS itself but I haven't checked. The status of the test cases must be determined. I'll try to find out more tonight. > At the moment, the LICENCE document in CVS is a BSD-like licence (the > FreeBSD copyright notice s/FreeBSD/OpenCLIPS/) so I changed the projects > licence in the sf.net catagorisation, we can change it back later if > needed, but I'd prefer to keep OpenCLIPS as free as possible, in line > with the original CLIPS release into the public domain. My Issues!<g> There have been NUMEROUS commercial implementations using Clips as a base. How many have contributed back to the core project? Not many as far as I can find. THat is my reason for leaning towards the GPL. That said......I want to be able to grow a vibrant community. If the general thoughts are that the GPL will restrict the size of the development community then I think I need to reconsider a BSD or is it appropriate to use the LGPL? > There is also a brief TODO in CVS with a number of administrivia and some > preliminary cleanup work that we'll need to do. It should really be > expanded into a roadmap of some description. I think it would be wise to > have a rough sketch of the future directions and a first release out > before announcing the project widely (e.g. on the CLIPS mailing lists). Ok. I hope Glen has some time to take this on now. He had told me before that he would try to take the lead project management so that the others could do most of the development. I do expect he will have a hand in coding as well. Glen, what is your current situation? Cheers, Tim |
|
From: <ths...@po...> - 2004-09-21 16:25:21
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:27:05 -0700 Tim Cook wrote: > The OpenCLIPS project has been approved on SourceForge. The relevant > links are below. About time :-) I've been getting sick of seeing "Invalid Project". > Thomas Sutton will be uploading the base source code that we will be > starting from. Done. It is in the openclips module under the projects cvsroot. The CLIPS source (version 6.22) is up with the test cases distributed on the ghg.net site (though they don't have a "real" testing framework written yet). There are also some examples, also from somewhere on ghg.net. The test cases and examples I have included presuming that they are provided under the same conditions as CLIPS itself but I haven't checked. > Once the package has been verified that it installs and runs, I propose > that the first order of business is to properly identify all files with > the project name and distribution license and immediately create a > release of OpenCLIPS. > Thoughts? At the moment, the LICENCE document in CVS is a BSD-like licence (the FreeBSD copyright notice s/FreeBSD/OpenCLIPS/) so I changed the projects licence in the sf.net catagorisation, we can change it back later if needed, but I'd prefer to keep OpenCLIPS as free as possible, in line with the original CLIPS release into the public domain. There is also a brief TODO in CVS with a number of administrivia and some preliminary cleanup work that we'll need to do. It should really be expanded into a roadmap of some description. I think it would be wise to have a rough sketch of the future directions and a first release out before announcing the project widely (e.g. on the CLIPS mailing lists). > Project Page: > https://sourceforge.net/projects/openclips/ > Mailing list: > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openclips-development > Cheers, > Tim Cheers, Thomas Sutton |
|
From: Tim C. <tw...@sh...> - 2004-09-21 14:28:41
|
The OpenCLIPS project has been approved on SourceForge. The relevant links are below. Thomas Sutton will be uploading the base source code that we will be starting from. Once the package has been verified that it installs and runs, I propose that the first order of business is to properly identify all files with the project name and distribution license and immediately create a release of OpenCLIPS. Thoughts? Project Page: https://sourceforge.net/projects/openclips/ Mailing list: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openclips-development Cheers, Tim |
