Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Hongyi Zhao]

Wolfram Mathematica and its language is a powerful tool for scientific
and engineering applications, but the default GUI, i.e., the notebook,
is not convenient for writing and debugging long and complicated
scripts.

So, I want to know if there are some well-developed modes/packages in
Emacs ecosystem which can fulfil this requirement.

Regards
-- 
Assoc. Prof. Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com>
Theory and Simulation of Materials
Hebei Vocational University of Technology and Engineering
NO. 552 North Gangtie Road, Xingtai, China

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Hongyi Zhao wrote:

> Wolfram Mathematica and its language is a powerful tool for
> scientific and engineering applications, but the default
> GUI, i.e., the notebook, is not convenient for writing and
> debugging long and complicated scripts.

You don't say...

> So, I want to know if there are some well-developed
> modes/packages in Emacs ecosystem which can fulfil
> this requirement.

The EmacsWiki? M/ELPA?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Christopher Dimech]

Mathematics is done by computers based on heuristic formulas and computational methods
way different than what is taught in classroom.

Suggesting that Mathematica can bring to you very complex methods is not a beneficial
aspect for a researcher because it doesn't tell you how they accomplished it and it
could well have take years of work and research that you need to do all over again.

---------------------
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 5:39 PM
> From: "Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.
>
> Hongyi Zhao wrote:
>
> > Wolfram Mathematica and its language is a powerful tool for
> > scientific and engineering applications, but the default
> > GUI, i.e., the notebook, is not convenient for writing and
> > debugging long and complicated scripts.
>
> You don't say...
>
> > So, I want to know if there are some well-developed
> > modes/packages in Emacs ecosystem which can fulfil
> > this requirement.
>
> The EmacsWiki? M/ELPA?
>
> --
> underground experts united
> https://dataswamp.org/~incal
>
>
>

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Christopher Dimech wrote:

> Mathematics is done by computers based on heuristic formulas
> and computational methods way different than what is taught
> in classroom.
>
> Suggesting that Mathematica can bring to you very complex
> methods is not a beneficial aspect for a researcher because
> it doesn't tell you how they accomplished it and it could
> well have take years of work and research that you need to
> do all over again.

It sounds like a tool and these can be used in any number of
ways, it is even possible to abuse or loose a tool, for
example if some "pal" borrows it and never returns it.

Point is, it is up to anyone to decide and if it can be done
from Emacs it is perhaps likely even someone has already tried
that and lived to tell the tale.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 8:54 PM
> From: "Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.
>
> Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> > Mathematics is done by computers based on heuristic formulas
> > and computational methods way different than what is taught
> > in classroom.
> >
> > Suggesting that Mathematica can bring to you very complex
> > methods is not a beneficial aspect for a researcher because
> > it doesn't tell you how they accomplished it and it could
> > well have take years of work and research that you need to
> > do all over again.
>
> It sounds like a tool and these can be used in any number of
> ways, it is even possible to abuse or loose a tool, for
> example if some "pal" borrows it and never returns it.
>
> Point is, it is up to anyone to decide and if it can be done
> from Emacs it is perhaps likely even someone has already tried
> that and lived to tell the tale.

I see it as support for proprietary software which does nothing for the GNU Project.
Thusly, although someone might include such functionality for Emacs, it should not
be taken up as part of the official emacs development chain.

> --
> underground experts united
> https://dataswamp.org/~incal
>
>
>

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Christopher Dimech wrote:

> I see it as support for proprietary software which does
> nothing for the GNU Project.

Christ, what is this licence zeal all of a sudden? You think
the rest of us spend our days betting on horse races in support
of the pitch-dark military-sportific complex, using a spyware
web UI and Internet Explorer?

> Thusly, although someone might include such functionality
> for Emacs, it should not be taken up as part of the official
> emacs development chain.

What's included or not is up to the maintainers who hopefully
have earned that position thru hard work and sound intuition
with respect to software and politics, but let there be said
that people do "proprietary" software and technology with
Emacs every single day of the week - including Thursdays, so
not even the pea soup seems to help...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Jean Louis]

* Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-23 13:01]:

> I see it as support for proprietary software which does nothing for
> the GNU Project.  Thusly, although someone might include such
> functionality for Emacs, it should not be taken up as part of the
> official emacs development chain.

Thank you for pointing that out. 

We don't support in GNU project proprietary software, such discussions
should be made in other places.

It is also questionable from licensing view point, both from the
proprietary software vendor and from free software viewpoint.

GPL3+ license does not allow making publicly distributed software that
requires Emacs and also requires proprietary software. It does not go,
as it cannot be properly GPL3+ licensed as whole.

Unless if it would be written by the author of proprietary software
part, as in that case GPL3+ license would allow to disregard any
proprietary prohibitions (provided there is source).

When any Emacs package is made, then the package has to be with GPL3+
compatible software license because it requires Emacs which is GPL3+
licensed.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Jean Louis]

* Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> [2021-05-23 13:11]:
> > Thusly, although someone might include such functionality
> > for Emacs, it should not be taken up as part of the official
> > emacs development chain.
> 
> What's included or not is up to the maintainers who hopefully
> have earned that position thru hard work and sound intuition
> with respect to software and politics, but let there be said
> that people do "proprietary" software and technology with
> Emacs every single day of the week - including Thursdays, so
> not even the pea soup seems to help...

Maintainers in GNU project never include proprietary software in Emacs
neither in GNU ELPA, nor non-GNU ELPA on GNU servers. They are doing
great work. There is no referencing to proprietary software, no
mentioning of proprietary software.

People may use any free software to upgrade their proprietary
software, and they can create internal proprietary software, but does
it matter when it is internal? As soon as they convey the software to
some party or publish it, it has to be the GPL3+ compatible. How much
people use it internally is up to them. All software never published
could be considered proprietary, but if it was never published... it
does not even exist for public.

If it was not issued with a compatible free software license, then it
could be considered that it was issued, that it is GPL3+ and it could
be taken as free software as license was not given to create
proprietary Emacs modifications.

Emacs package modifies Emacs as editor. Thus any Emacs program
distributed in public has to be free software compatible with GPL3+
license.


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 12:00 AM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: moasenwood@zoho.eu, help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.
>
> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-23 13:01]:
>
> > I see it as support for proprietary software which does nothing for
> > the GNU Project.  Thusly, although someone might include such
> > functionality for Emacs, it should not be taken up as part of the
> > official emacs development chain.
>
> Thank you for pointing that out.
>
> We don't support in GNU project proprietary software, such discussions
> should be made in other places.
>
> It is also questionable from licensing view point, both from the
> proprietary software vendor and from free software viewpoint.
>
> GPL3+ license does not allow making publicly distributed software that
> requires Emacs and also requires proprietary software. It does not go,
> as it cannot be properly GPL3+ licensed as whole.
>
> Unless if it would be written by the author of proprietary software
> part, as in that case GPL3+ license would allow to disregard any
> proprietary prohibitions (provided there is source).
>
> When any Emacs package is made, then the package has to be with GPL3+
> compatible software license because it requires Emacs which is GPL3+
> licensed.

For official Gnu Software that is true, but onu can also make a package for
emacs where the code is proprietary.

> --
> Jean
>
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
>
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
>

Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 8:54 PM
> From: "Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.
>
> Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> > Mathematics is done by computers based on heuristic formulas
> > and computational methods way different than what is taught
> > in classroom.
> >
> > Suggesting that Mathematica can bring to you very complex
> > methods is not a beneficial aspect for a researcher because
> > it doesn't tell you how they accomplished it and it could
> > well have take years of work and research that you need to
> > do all over again.
>
> It sounds like a tool and these can be used in any number of
> ways, it is even possible to abuse or loose a tool, for
> example if some "pal" borrows it and never returns it.
>
> Point is, it is up to anyone to decide and if it can be done
> from Emacs it is perhaps likely even someone has already tried
> that and lived to tell the tale.

Rather one should realise that the way forward is in not using Wolfram Mathematica
in the first place.

> --
> underground experts united
> https://dataswamp.org/~incal
>
>
>

Don't think Emacs package may be proprietary

[Jean Louis]

* Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-23 15:49]:
> For official Gnu Software that is true, but onu can also make a
> package for emacs where the code is proprietary.

Not when released to public in any way. Internally in one's house
person may do what one wishes, internally in the company, company may
do what they want with it. 

They cannot sell it, or in any way release to public as license does
not allows it.

Emacs package modifies Emacs and requires Emacs to run and thus
creates modified version of Emacs and has to be GPL3+
compatible. Emacs package with Emacs editor make a combined
program. 

Read here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins



-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Jean Louis]

* Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-23 15:58]:

> Rather one should realise that the way forward is in not using
> Wolfram Mathematica in the first place.

From the IDE viewpoint combined with licensing, I don't think there is
a problem for Emacs to be IDE to proprietary languages, though in GNU
people don't develop such.

If IDE is just executing the proprietary program, than IDE package
itself is not in conflict neither with GPL3+ Emacs nor with
proprietary license.


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Christopher Dimech]

---------------------
Christopher Dimech
General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy


> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 1:11 AM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: moasenwood@zoho.eu, help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.
>
> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-23 15:58]:
> 
> > Rather one should realise that the way forward is in not using
> > Wolfram Mathematica in the first place.
> 
> From the IDE viewpoint combined with licensing, I don't think there is
> a problem for Emacs to be IDE to proprietary languages, though in GNU
> people don't develop such.
> 
> If IDE is just executing the proprietary program, than IDE package
> itself is not in conflict neither with GPL3+ Emacs nor with
> proprietary license.

Legally, there are no problems for Emacs to be used as an IDE to proprietary languages.
But their decision to make and use proprietary software is a decision to stay out of our
community.  Being in our community means joining in cooperation with us; we cannot “bring
them into our community” if they don't want to join.

Proprietary software does not contribute to our community, but its users and developers
often want handouts from us.
 
> -- 
> Jean
> 
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
> 
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
>

Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 1:11 AM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: moasenwood@zoho.eu, help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.
>
> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-23 15:58]:
>
> > Rather one should realise that the way forward is in not using
> > Wolfram Mathematica in the first place.
>
> From the IDE viewpoint combined with licensing, I don't think there is
> a problem for Emacs to be IDE to proprietary languages, though in GNU
> people don't develop such.
>
> If IDE is just executing the proprietary program, than IDE package
> itself is not in conflict neither with GPL3+ Emacs nor with
> proprietary license.

The temptation and pressure are harder to recognize when they come indirectly, through
free software organizations that have adopted a policy of catering to proprietary software.
The Open Group offers an example - funded by companies that make proprietary software.

> --
> Jean
>
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
>
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
>

Don't think Emacs package may be proprietary

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 1:09 AM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, moasenwood@zoho.eu
> Subject: Don't think Emacs package may be proprietary
>
> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-23 15:49]:
> > For official Gnu Software that is true, but onu can also make a
> > package for emacs where the code is proprietary.
>
> Not when released to public in any way. Internally in one's house
> person may do what one wishes, internally in the company, company may
> do what they want with it.

I can make an proprietary emacs package without using any free software.
I just cannot use code released with a free software license.

> They cannot sell it, or in any way release to public as license does
> not allows it.
>
> Emacs package modifies Emacs and requires Emacs to run and thus
> creates modified version of Emacs and has to be GPL3+
> compatible. Emacs package with Emacs editor make a combined
> program.

My statement is quite different.  Having emacs cater to proprietary users is a poor decision.
But people can do what they want.

Pragmatically speaking, focusing  your mind on the freedom and community and thinking
about greater long-term goals will strengthen you to resist this pressure.

School Administrators around the world should stop requiring students to run non-free software.
If hard-nosed cynics ridicule freedom because in their mind unjust profit is the only purpose,
ignore them.

> Read here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins
>
>
>
> --
> Jean
>
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
>
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
>
>

Re: Don't think Emacs package may be proprietary

[Jean Louis]

* Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-23 16:54]:
> I can make an proprietary emacs package without using any free
> software.

Of course you can make. We talk hypothetically. You can practically
make it and in that case it is violation of GPL3+.

> I just cannot use code released with a free software license.

That I don't understand.

> > They cannot sell it, or in any way release to public as license does
> > not allows it.
> >
> > Emacs package modifies Emacs and requires Emacs to run and thus
> > creates modified version of Emacs and has to be GPL3+
> > compatible. Emacs package with Emacs editor make a combined
> > program.
> 
> My statement is quite different.  Having emacs cater to proprietary
> users is a poor decision.  But people can do what they want.

I don't know what means "proprietary users" and to cater for them.


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Don't think Emacs package may be proprietary

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 2:03 AM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, moasenwood@zoho.eu
> Subject: Re: Don't think Emacs package may be proprietary
>
> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-23 16:54]:
> > I can make an proprietary emacs package without using any free
> > software.
>
> Of course you can make. We talk hypothetically. You can practically
> make it and in that case it is violation of GPL3+.

If you don't use any code released under the GPL, you will not be violating the GPL.
Using emacs does not stop you from calling some functionality released under a proprietary
license.

> > I just cannot use code released with a free software license.
>
> That I don't understand.

Suppose I write a major mode under the Code Project Open License or the NASA Open Source
Agreement (two terrible licenses) and include some code from org-mode.  You cannot do that
because that would be a violation of the GPL.  Otherwise, you can write your own code and
distribute it under the aforementioned proprietary licenses.  Then use emacs and include
the file implementing the major mode file.  There would be no violation.


> > > They cannot sell it, or in any way release to public as license does
> > > not allows it.
> > >
> > > Emacs package modifies Emacs and requires Emacs to run and thus
> > > creates modified version of Emacs and has to be GPL3+
> > > compatible. Emacs package with Emacs editor make a combined
> > > program.
> >
> > My statement is quite different.  Having emacs cater to proprietary
> > users is a poor decision.  But people can do what they want.
>
> I don't know what means "proprietary users" and to cater for them.
>
>
> --
> Jean
>
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
>
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
>

Don't think Emacs package may be proprietary

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 2:03 AM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, moasenwood@zoho.eu
> Subject: Re: Don't think Emacs package may be proprietary
>
> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-23 16:54]:
> > I can make an proprietary emacs package without using any free
> > software.
>
> Of course you can make. We talk hypothetically. You can practically
> make it and in that case it is violation of GPL3+.
>
> > I just cannot use code released with a free software license.
>
> That I don't understand.
>
> > > They cannot sell it, or in any way release to public as license does
> > > not allows it.
> > >
> > > Emacs package modifies Emacs and requires Emacs to run and thus
> > > creates modified version of Emacs and has to be GPL3+
> > > compatible. Emacs package with Emacs editor make a combined
> > > program.
> >
> > My statement is quite different.  Having emacs cater to proprietary
> > users is a poor decision.  But people can do what they want.
>
> I don't know what means "proprietary users" and to cater for them.

To cater for users of Wolfram Mathematica with functionality specific to that language.


> --
> Jean
>
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
>
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
>
>

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Jean Louis wrote:

> Thank you for pointing that out.
>
> We don't support in GNU project proprietary software, such
> discussions should be made in other places.
>
> It is also questionable from licensing view point, both from
> the proprietary software vendor and from free
> software viewpoint.
>
> GPL3+ license does not allow making publicly distributed
> software that requires Emacs and also requires proprietary
> software. It does not go, as it cannot be properly GPL3+
> licensed as whole.
>
> Unless if it would be written by the author of proprietary
> software part, as in that case GPL3+ license would allow to
> disregard any proprietary prohibitions (provided there is
> source).
>
> When any Emacs package is made, then the package has to be
> with GPL3+ compatible software license because it requires
> Emacs which is GPL3+ licensed.

Shoots above the target /
punches in open doors.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Jean Louis wrote:

> Maintainers in GNU project never include proprietary
> software in Emacs neither in GNU ELPA, nor non-GNU ELPA on
> GNU servers. They are doing great work. There is no
> referencing to proprietary software, no mentioning of
> proprietary software.
>
> People may use any free software to upgrade their
> proprietary software, and they can create internal
> proprietary software, but does it matter when it is
> internal? As soon as they convey the software to some party
> or publish it, it has to be the GPL3+ compatible. How much
> people use it internally is up to them. All software never
> published could be considered proprietary, but if it was
> never published... it does not even exist for public.
>
> If it was not issued with a compatible free software
> license, then it could be considered that it was issued,
> that it is GPL3+ and it could be taken as free software as
> license was not given to create proprietary
> Emacs modifications.
>
> Emacs package modifies Emacs as editor. Thus any Emacs
> program distributed in public has to be free software
> compatible with GPL3+ license.

Shoots above the target /
punches in open doors.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Christopher Dimech wrote:

> Rather one should realise that the way forward is in not
> using Wolfram Mathematica in the first place.

The laws of computing forbids it.

All hail techno-techno totalitarianism!

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Free software is liberty for future - Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Jean Louis]

* Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> [2021-05-24 00:35]:
> Christopher Dimech wrote:
> 
> > Rather one should realise that the way forward is in not
> > using Wolfram Mathematica in the first place.
> 
> The laws of computing forbids it.
> 
> All hail techno-techno totalitarianism!

ಠ_ಠ

The 𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞[1] is strong and wants the future of full control over
the population.

What we do today and the manner of preference and popularization of
free software strongly influence the future and freedom of planetary
citizens. 

1: dark force

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 9:26 AM
> From: "Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.
>
> Jean Louis wrote:
>
> > Thank you for pointing that out.
> >
> > We don't support in GNU project proprietary software, such
> > discussions should be made in other places.
> >
> > It is also questionable from licensing view point, both from
> > the proprietary software vendor and from free
> > software viewpoint.
> >
> > GPL3+ license does not allow making publicly distributed
> > software that requires Emacs and also requires proprietary
> > software. It does not go, as it cannot be properly GPL3+
> > licensed as whole.
> >
> > Unless if it would be written by the author of proprietary
> > software part, as in that case GPL3+ license would allow to
> > disregard any proprietary prohibitions (provided there is
> > source).
> >
> > When any Emacs package is made, then the package has to be
> > with GPL3+ compatible software license because it requires
> > Emacs which is GPL3+ licensed.

That is a frequent misconception, if some code requires emacs, it does not mean
that the license has to be GPL3+ compatible.  The license could be proprietary,
open source, etc.

The problem is not about the support of a programming language.  When emacs supports
a language such as C, it would also support proprietary implementations of the language.
I see no problem with that.  But currently, there is no free software alternative
to Wolfram Mathematica that benefits users.


> Shoots above the target /
> punches in open doors.
>
> --
> underground experts united
> https://dataswamp.org/~incal
>
>
>

Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 9:28 AM
> From: "Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor" <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.
>
> Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> > Rather one should realise that the way forward is in not
> > using Wolfram Mathematica in the first place.
>
> The laws of computing forbids it.

Unjust copyright laws forbid it.  The laws of computing also allow
reverse engineering, but I cannot teach that at many shitty universities,
except clandestinely.  So I do it anyway.

> All hail techno-techno totalitarianism!

Or that proprietary software does not bother you, you could just say that.
Totalitarianism in when you apply for public funding and the public
institution forbids you in developing free software.  In addition, there
are also many public universities who do that.  It is so bad that you
would need permission to use your work because university administrators
decided to license the software to third parties.

> --
> underground experts united
> https://dataswamp.org/~incal
>
>
>

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Jean Louis]

* Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-24 11:28]:
> > > When any Emacs package is made, then the package has to be
> > > with GPL3+ compatible software license because it requires
> > > Emacs which is GPL3+ licensed.
> 
> That is a frequent misconception, if some code requires emacs, it
> does not mean that the license has to be GPL3+ compatible.  The
> license could be proprietary, open source, etc.

(✿╹◡╹) Maybe misconception is on my side or your side, I believe it is
in your side.

Emacs package is not quite same as proprietary Lisp code that could
run under free software programming language.

gcc is free compiler, and people could make proprietary software with
it. But such proprietary software does not change the gcc and not
necessarily depend on gcc to get run, but as soon as it depend on some
GPL component, then it cannot be made proprietary.

Now CLISP, Guile, and other programming languages may be GNU GPL
software. When you make a program to be run by Guile, CLISP, those
programs could be proprietary software as they do not change nor
modify the Guile, nor CLISP. They are just executed by free
software. But the overall result depends of components used in the
program, you cannot just include GPL components as you wish and want
in your proprietary program.

Would the Emacs Lisp program be exclusively run from command line as
run by Emacs as programming language then such program could be
licensed as proprietary software. But that also would depend if your
program is using the GPL components or not, which most probably would
use.

(⌐■_■) So the question is answered here:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL

If you just interpret the Emacs Lisp, it is fine, but question is, do
you bind to GPL components? Most probably you do.

Would you make an Emacs Lisp program that does not bind to any of the
GPL components then such program could be proprietary. But if you do
bind to any components, it cannot be proprietary.

For example, if you do something like:

(require 'seq)

That would make it no go, as your program clearly binds to GPL-ed
sequence manipulation library of Nicolas Petton. You cannot legally
make proprietary software by binding to GPL libraries.

As long as Emacs program has to be run within Emacs editor, it is
changing the editor, thus it is modification and program is not
considered stand-alone any more, it is combined program in copyright
terms, and cannot be proprietary.

> The problem is not about the support of a programming language.
> When emacs supports a language such as C, it would also support
> proprietary implementations of the language.  I see no problem with
> that.  But currently, there is no free software alternative to
> Wolfram Mathematica that benefits users.

I would say there is no alternative to free software, so I will not
use Wolfram Mathematica, I will not even look what it does, but when
somebody comes up and tells what features are needed we can maybe
find.

- SageMath is free software
- GNU Octave is free software
- R Programming Language is free software
- Jupyter is free software
- Maxima is free software


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 9:10 PM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: moasenwood@zoho.eu, help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.
>
> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-24 11:28]:
> > > > When any Emacs package is made, then the package has to be
> > > > with GPL3+ compatible software license because it requires
> > > > Emacs which is GPL3+ licensed.
> > 
> > That is a frequent misconception, if some code requires emacs, it
> > does not mean that the license has to be GPL3+ compatible.  The
> > license could be proprietary, open source, etc.
> 
> (✿╹◡╹) Maybe misconception is on my side or your side, I believe it is
> in your side.

Read more ;)
 
> Emacs package is not quite same as proprietary Lisp code that could
> run under free software programming language.
> 
> gcc is free compiler, and people could make proprietary software with
> it. But such proprietary software does not change the gcc and not
> necessarily depend on gcc to get run, but as soon as it depend on some
> GPL component, then it cannot be made proprietary.

The license only limits you on what you can distribute, nothing else.
 
> Now CLISP, Guile, and other programming languages may be GNU GPL
> software. When you make a program to be run by Guile, CLISP, those
> programs could be proprietary software as they do not change nor
> modify the Guile, nor CLISP. They are just executed by free
> software. But the overall result depends of components used in the
> program, you cannot just include GPL components as you wish and want
> in your proprietary program.
> 
> Would the Emacs Lisp program be exclusively run from command line as
> run by Emacs as programming language then such program could be
> licensed as proprietary software. But that also would depend if your
> program is using the GPL components or not, which most probably would
> use.
> 
> (⌐■_■) So the question is answered here:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
> 
> If you just interpret the Emacs Lisp, it is fine, but question is, do
> you bind to GPL components? Most probably you do.
> 
> Would you make an Emacs Lisp program that does not bind to any of the
> GPL components then such program could be proprietary. But if you do
> bind to any components, it cannot be proprietary.

> For example, if you do something like:
> 
> (require 'seq)

You can certainly do that as long as you do not distribute seq with it in
a proprietary blob.  What you cannot do is limit what people can do with
seq.
 
> That would make it no go, as your program clearly binds to GPL-ed
> sequence manipulation library of Nicolas Petton. You cannot legally
> make proprietary software by binding to GPL libraries.
> 
> As long as Emacs program has to be run within Emacs editor, it is
> changing the editor, thus it is modification and program is not
> considered stand-alone any more, it is combined program in copyright
> terms, and cannot be proprietary.
> 
> > The problem is not about the support of a programming language.
> > When emacs supports a language such as C, it would also support
> > proprietary implementations of the language.  I see no problem with
> > that.  But currently, there is no free software alternative to
> > Wolfram Mathematica that benefits users.
> 
> I would say there is no alternative to free software, so I will not
> use Wolfram Mathematica, I will not even look what it does, but when
> somebody comes up and tells what features are needed we can maybe
> find.

Looking at what it does for the purpose of reverse engineering does not bother me.
You can learn from anything and anybody.
 
> - SageMath is free software
> - GNU Octave is free software
> - R Programming Language is free software
> - Jupyter is free software
> - Maxima is free software
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jean
> 
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
> 
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
>

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Jean Louis]

* Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-24 12:35]:
> > (✿╹◡╹) Maybe misconception is on my side or your side, I believe it is
> > in your side.
> 
> Read more ;)

> > gcc is free compiler, and people could make proprietary software with
> > it. But such proprietary software does not change the gcc and not
> > necessarily depend on gcc to get run, but as soon as it depend on some
> > GPL component, then it cannot be made proprietary.
> 
> The license only limits you on what you can distribute, nothing
> else.

It limits you, among other limitations, to distribute free software
program as combined with proprietary program.

It limits you, among other limitations, to make a combined program
with a free software program, unless the free software program is
licensed under the LGPL.

Otherwise you cannot make proprietary program combined with GPL-ed
program.

> > Now CLISP, Guile, and other programming languages may be GNU GPL
> > software. When you make a program to be run by Guile, CLISP, those
> > programs could be proprietary software as they do not change nor
> > modify the Guile, nor CLISP. They are just executed by free
> > software. But the overall result depends of components used in the
> > program, you cannot just include GPL components as you wish and want
> > in your proprietary program.
> > 
> > Would the Emacs Lisp program be exclusively run from command line as
> > run by Emacs as programming language then such program could be
> > licensed as proprietary software. But that also would depend if your
> > program is using the GPL components or not, which most probably would
> > use.
> > 
> > (⌐■_■) So the question is answered here:
> > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
> > 
> > If you just interpret the Emacs Lisp, it is fine, but question is, do
> > you bind to GPL components? Most probably you do.
> > 
> > Would you make an Emacs Lisp program that does not bind to any of the
> > GPL components then such program could be proprietary. But if you do
> > bind to any components, it cannot be proprietary.
> 
> > For example, if you do something like:
> > 
> > (require 'seq)
> 
> You can certainly do that as long as you do not distribute seq with it in
> a proprietary blob.  What you cannot do is limit what people can do with
> seq.

People can do anything, we speak what is allowed by the license, now
what one can do. The license of a GPL program does not allow making a
combined program with it and not license it under same terms.

I am asking you to make your homework first, as it is not good
spreading misleading information on the mailing list that remains in
the public forever.

Read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License

Quote:

The GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) is a free-software
license published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The license
allows developers and companies to use and integrate a software
component released under the LGPL into their own (even proprietary)
software without being required by the terms of a strong copyleft
license to release the source code of their own components. However,
any developer who modifies an LGPL-covered component is required to
make their modified version available under the same LGPL license. For
proprietary software, code under the LGPL is usually used in the form
of a shared library, so that there is a clear separation between the
proprietary and LGPL components. The LGPL is primarily used for
software libraries, although it is also used by some stand-alone
applications. 

Read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#Differences_from_the_GPL

Emacs is not LGPL, and license does not allow combining code with
proprietary programs. So, no, you cannot require 'seq or any other
Emacs library in a proprietary program without violation of the GPL.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 11:31 PM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: moasenwood@zoho.eu, help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.
>
> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-24 12:35]:
> > > (✿╹◡╹) Maybe misconception is on my side or your side, I believe it is
> > > in your side.
> > 
> > Read more ;)
> 
> > > gcc is free compiler, and people could make proprietary software with
> > > it. But such proprietary software does not change the gcc and not
> > > necessarily depend on gcc to get run, but as soon as it depend on some
> > > GPL component, then it cannot be made proprietary.
> > 
> > The license only limits you on what you can distribute, nothing
> > else.
> 
> It limits you, among other limitations, to distribute free software
> program as combined with proprietary program.
> 
> It limits you, among other limitations, to make a combined program
> with a free software program, unless the free software program is
> licensed under the LGPL.
> 
> Otherwise you cannot make proprietary program combined with GPL-ed
> program.

Correct, only when combined.  
 
> > > Now CLISP, Guile, and other programming languages may be GNU GPL
> > > software. When you make a program to be run by Guile, CLISP, those
> > > programs could be proprietary software as they do not change nor
> > > modify the Guile, nor CLISP. They are just executed by free
> > > software. But the overall result depends of components used in the
> > > program, you cannot just include GPL components as you wish and want
> > > in your proprietary program.
> > > 
> > > Would the Emacs Lisp program be exclusively run from command line as
> > > run by Emacs as programming language then such program could be
> > > licensed as proprietary software. But that also would depend if your
> > > program is using the GPL components or not, which most probably would
> > > use.
> > > 
> > > (⌐■_■) So the question is answered here:
> > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
> > > 
> > > If you just interpret the Emacs Lisp, it is fine, but question is, do
> > > you bind to GPL components? Most probably you do.
> > > 
> > > Would you make an Emacs Lisp program that does not bind to any of the
> > > GPL components then such program could be proprietary. But if you do
> > > bind to any components, it cannot be proprietary.
> > 
> > > For example, if you do something like:
> > > 
> > > (require 'seq)
> > 
> > You can certainly do that as long as you do not distribute seq with it in
> > a proprietary blob.  What you cannot do is limit what people can do with
> > seq.
> 
> People can do anything, we speak what is allowed by the license, now
> what one can do. The license of a GPL program does not allow making a
> combined program with it and not license it under same terms.

I was not talking about combined programs.  I was discussing writing
a package distributed separately with a proprietary license. 
 
> I am asking you to make your homework first, as it is not good
> spreading misleading information on the mailing list that remains in
> the public forever.

It is not misleading as you state.
 
> Read:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License
> 
> Quote:
> 
> The GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) is a free-software
> license published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The license
> allows developers and companies to use and integrate a software
> component released under the LGPL into their own (even proprietary)
> software without being required by the terms of a strong copyleft
> license to release the source code of their own components. However,
> any developer who modifies an LGPL-covered component is required to
> make their modified version available under the same LGPL license. For
> proprietary software, code under the LGPL is usually used in the form
> of a shared library, so that there is a clear separation between the
> proprietary and LGPL components. The LGPL is primarily used for
> software libraries, although it is also used by some stand-alone
> applications. 
> 
> Read:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#Differences_from_the_GPL
> 
> Emacs is not LGPL, and license does not allow combining code with
> proprietary programs. So, no, you cannot require 'seq or any other
> Emacs library in a proprietary program without violation of the GPL.
> 
> -- 
> Jean
> 
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
> 
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
>

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Jean Louis]

* Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-24 14:43]:
> > Otherwise you cannot make proprietary program combined with GPL-ed
> > program.
> 
> Correct, only when combined.  

It is combined even if not distributed together. You are combining
program when one program needs the other one for proper functions. 

Thus, what people call "init files" or "configuration files" are
actually programs that modify Emacs and are bound to GPL and have to
be licensed properly.

> > People can do anything, we speak what is allowed by the license, now
> > what one can do. The license of a GPL program does not allow making a
> > combined program with it and not license it under same terms.
> 
> I was not talking about combined programs.  I was discussing writing
> a package distributed separately with a proprietary license. 

If that package runs without modification of Emacs software, it does
not modify Emacs, it is just data that is interpreted. It also cannot
require any of GPL libraries that are GPL licensed. However, majority
of packages are written with the purpose to modify Emacs. Not to use
Emacs Lisp solely for its own purposes.

If you write such code, under conditions not to modify Emacs, not to
use GPL-ed libraries, then it could be proprietary. Otherwise legally
it cannot be. Question is why would anybody use Emacs to write such
interpreted programs when there are many other programming languages
with MIT licensed libraries.

MIT licensed libraries one can use how one wants, GPL-ed no.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 11:54 PM
> From: "Jean Louis" <bugs@gnu.support>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: moasenwood@zoho.eu, help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.
>
> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-24 14:43]:
> > > Otherwise you cannot make proprietary program combined with GPL-ed
> > > program.
> >
> > Correct, only when combined.
>
> It is combined even if not distributed together. You are combining
> program when one program needs the other one for proper functions.
>
> Thus, what people call "init files" or "configuration files" are
> actually programs that modify Emacs and are bound to GPL and have to
> be licensed properly.

You can add functionality as you wish.  When you use emacs for personal use, you
are not bound to GPL Licensed code only.

> > > People can do anything, we speak what is allowed by the license, now
> > > what one can do. The license of a GPL program does not allow making a
> > > combined program with it and not license it under same terms.
> >
> > I was not talking about combined programs.  I was discussing writing
> > a package distributed separately with a proprietary license.
>
> If that package runs without modification of Emacs software, it does
> not modify Emacs, it is just data that is interpreted. It also cannot
> require any of GPL libraries that are GPL licensed. However, majority
> of packages are written with the purpose to modify Emacs. Not to use
> Emacs Lisp solely for its own purposes.

It could be for personal use, but not part of emacs.

> If you write such code, under conditions not to modify Emacs, not to
> use GPL-ed libraries, then it could be proprietary. Otherwise legally
> it cannot be. Question is why would anybody use Emacs to write such
> interpreted programs when there are many other programming languages
> with MIT licensed libraries.

You are correct, I was talking from the legal point of view, and about emacs support
for Wolfram Mathematica.  Ubuntu is one such system, where you have free software where
proprietary code is added to it.

> MIT licensed libraries one can use how one wants, GPL-ed no.

MIT has used many licenses, and it is ambiguous because many faili to distinguish
between them.  One should not use the term "MIT License".

> --
> Jean
>
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
>
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
>

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Jean Louis]

* Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-24 15:48]:
> You can add functionality as you wish.  When you use emacs for
> personal use, you are not bound to GPL Licensed code only.

(✿╹◡╹) That is right. Only that it is not a licensed software. I mean
it is possible to imagine it is licensed, but it cannot be conveyed or
given to anybody unless licensed properly.

> > If that package runs without modification of Emacs software, it does
> > not modify Emacs, it is just data that is interpreted. It also cannot
> > require any of GPL libraries that are GPL licensed. However, majority
> > of packages are written with the purpose to modify Emacs. Not to use
> > Emacs Lisp solely for its own purposes.
> 
> It could be for personal use, but not part of emacs.

You got it right.

> > If you write such code, under conditions not to modify Emacs, not to
> > use GPL-ed libraries, then it could be proprietary. Otherwise legally
> > it cannot be. Question is why would anybody use Emacs to write such
> > interpreted programs when there are many other programming languages
> > with MIT licensed libraries.
> 
> You are correct, I was talking from the legal point of view, and
> about emacs support for Wolfram Mathematica.  Ubuntu is one such
> system, where you have free software where proprietary code is added
> to it.

Ubuntu is operating system, is is collection of software. It is not
impossible to have collection with mix of proprietary and free
software, I have seen such collections since 1999. 

Emacs support for proprietary software would be possible if such
support is in terms of a mode that just takes care of editing.

Problem would be if Emacs package requires the proprietary software
and GPL-ed software in the same time.

The IDE and modes most probably do not require, they would just
execute external problem.

> > MIT licensed libraries one can use how one wants, GPL-ed no.
> 
> MIT has used many licenses, and it is ambiguous because many faili
> to distinguish between them.  One should not use the term "MIT
> License".

Yes, but you got it.


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Hongyi Zhao]

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:13 PM Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
>
> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-24 15:48]:
> > You can add functionality as you wish.  When you use emacs for
> > personal use, you are not bound to GPL Licensed code only.
>
> (✿╹◡╹) That is right. Only that it is not a licensed software. I mean
> it is possible to imagine it is licensed, but it cannot be conveyed or
> given to anybody unless licensed properly.
>
> > > If that package runs without modification of Emacs software, it does
> > > not modify Emacs, it is just data that is interpreted. It also cannot
> > > require any of GPL libraries that are GPL licensed. However, majority
> > > of packages are written with the purpose to modify Emacs. Not to use
> > > Emacs Lisp solely for its own purposes.
> >
> > It could be for personal use, but not part of emacs.
>
> You got it right.
>
> > > If you write such code, under conditions not to modify Emacs, not to
> > > use GPL-ed libraries, then it could be proprietary. Otherwise legally
> > > it cannot be. Question is why would anybody use Emacs to write such
> > > interpreted programs when there are many other programming languages
> > > with MIT licensed libraries.
> >
> > You are correct, I was talking from the legal point of view, and
> > about emacs support for Wolfram Mathematica.  Ubuntu is one such
> > system, where you have free software where proprietary code is added
> > to it.
>
> Ubuntu is operating system, is is collection of software. It is not
> impossible to have collection with mix of proprietary and free
> software, I have seen such collections since 1999.
>
> Emacs support for proprietary software would be possible if such
> support is in terms of a mode that just takes care of editing.
>
> Problem would be if Emacs package requires the proprietary software
> and GPL-ed software in the same time.
>
> The IDE and modes most probably do not require, they would just
> execute external problem.

I found that the following project which is provided as a vscode
plugin. As far as I know, this one has the best support for the
Wolfram Mathematica language based on the Microsoft Language Server
Protocol (LSP).  And it also has the support for Emacs as described
here,  <https://github.com/kenkangxgwe/lsp-wl/wiki#gnu-emacs>, with
the following specific settings:


(add-to-list 'lsp-language-id-configuration '(wolfram-mode . "Mathematica"))

(lsp-register-client
 (make-lsp-client :language-id 'wolfram
                  :new-connection (lsp-tcp-server-command
                                   (lambda (port)
                                     `("wolfram" ;; or "wolframscript"
                                       "-script" ;; or "-file"
                                       "path/to/lsp-wl/init.wls"
                                       ,(concat
                                         "--socket="
                                         (number-to-string port)
                                         ))))
                  :major-modes '(wolfram-mode)
                  :server-id 'lsp-wl
                  ))

HY


>
> > > MIT licensed libraries one can use how one wants, GPL-ed no.
> >
> > MIT has used many licenses, and it is ambiguous because many faili
> > to distinguish between them.  One should not use the term "MIT
> > License".
>
> Yes, but you got it.
>
>
> --
> Jean
>
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
>
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
>


-- 
Assoc. Prof. Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com>
Theory and Simulation of Materials
Hebei Vocational University of Technology and Engineering
NO. 552 North Gangtie Road, Xingtai, China

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[TRS-80]

On 2021-05-23 06:10, Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text 
editor wrote:
> Christopher Dimech wrote:
> 
>> I see it as support for proprietary software which does
>> nothing for the GNU Project.
> 
> Christ, what is this licence zeal all of a sudden?

If an official GNU Project mailing list is not the appropriate place
to discuss such issues, I don't know where else would be?

Also, FWIW, I agree with Christopher.  There is a whole world of
places out there to discuss proprietary software.  Cannot those of us
who have decided to eschew it entirely have one little slice of the
Internet where we can get away from that in peace?

Cheers,
TRS-80

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[TRS-80]

On 2021-05-23 09:23, Christopher Dimech wrote:

>> * Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2021-05-23 15:58]:
>> 
>> > Rather one should realise that the way forward is in not using
>> > Wolfram Mathematica in the first place.
>> 
>> [...]

> Legally, there are no problems for Emacs to be used as an IDE to
> proprietary languages.  But their decision to make and use
> proprietary software is a decision to stay out of our community.
> Being in our community means joining in cooperation with us; we
> cannot “bring them into our community” if they don't want to join.
> 
> Proprietary software does not contribute to our community, but its
> users and developers often want handouts from us.

Hear, hear!

No aid and comfort for the enemy (the "enemy" being proprietary
software).  But you put it more nicely than me.  :)

Personally I think there is far too much attention / mind share paid
towards proprietary software.  Maybe not on this list, nor within the
GNU Project itself (the last bastion), but in general in F/LOSS (well
especially in more "Open Source"[0] circles).  Why give them free
advertising (in addition to the millions $$ some of them have
available to them, and other resources)?

Cheers,
TRS-80

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

Re: Use Emacs as the IDE for Wolfram Mathematica.

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

TRS-80 wrote:

> Personally I think there is far too much attention / mind
> share paid towards proprietary software. Maybe not on this
> list, nor within the GNU Project itself (the last bastion),
> but in general in F/LOSS (well especially in more "Open
> Source"[0] circles). Why give them free advertising (in
> addition to the millions $$ some of them have available to
> them, and other resources)?

I stopped playing computer games somewhere mid/late-90s,
I think the last games I played were, in abc order,
Fallout, Final Fantasy, StarCraft and Quake.

I thought these games were pretty fun to play but even today
Q years later they are part of my culture or education, even.

For example, listen to this:

  We've got a problem. A big one. The controller chip for our
  water purification system given up the ghost. We can't make
  another one and the process is too complicated for
  a work-around system. [1]

For me as with many other people who liked sports and
computers as a kid there came a time when Debian, Emacs,
LaTeX, and zsh was more fun than the mentioned game quadrupel
but commercial culture has been a huge part of me - not just
games, everything I'm into - bikes, tools, construction,
climbing, NGE, Alita, The Incal, ice hockey, Casio, Ryobi,
Hitachi, tree house activism - OK, not the last thing - but
other than that - everything is just commercial, capitalist
culture with the end purpose of making money.

But I have realized it can be good, in general and good for
me, AND be about money at the same time. Emacs is good, Emacs
is good for me, and not about money. But there are other
things than Emacs and I didn't see the FOSS community anywhere
around offering me other games instead of the mentioned ones.

Maybe GNU Tyccon?

NO thanks, if I believed in silent planning I would be writing
this right now, not planning, or should I shut up about that
and insterad asses what I'm doing and what will happen in
the future?


[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q928WafAdAI&ucbcb=1

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal