TheSwamp
Code Red => AutoLISP (Vanilla / Visual) => Topic started by: Kerry on April 23, 2008, 05:13:07 AM
-
AutoCAD LispWiki
http://lispwiki.com/index.php5?title=Special:Allpages
as mentioned here : http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/2008/04/autocad-lispwik.html
-
Darn late again. I was just coming to post that. :-)
(I think would be late for my own funeral)
The site looks promising and I like how it organized.
-
Great link Kerry...
Bookmarked for future use
-
AutoCAD LispWiki
http://lispwiki.com/index.php5?title=Special:Allpages
as mentioned here : http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/2008/04/autocad-lispwik.html
I also like how it's organized. Bookmarked!
Pockets
-
AutoCAD LispWiki
http://lispwiki.com/index.php5?title=Special:Allpages
as mentioned here : http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/2008/04/autocad-lispwik.html
Thanks for the reference! :)
I too have remembered a bookmark...
-
There is no page titled "theswamp".
:(
-
There is no page titled "theswamp".
:(
That needs to be fixed!!!
-
Woohoo!
-
All code there is released under the "GNU Free Documentation License".
IMO it should be a "BSD" style.
-
There is no page titled "theswamp".
:(
That needs to be fixed!!!
Anybody can edit those pages. You just have to create an account.
See -> http://lispwiki.com/index.php5?title=AutoLISP_Resources
-
Thanks Chuck! :)
-
Excellent site, thanks for sharing:)
-
There is no page titled "theswamp".
:(
I add it here:)
http://lispwiki.com/index.php5?title=AutoLISP_Links
and I have ever collected a lot of Lisp website here (many of them are in Chinese)
http://chenqj.blogspot.com/2006/09/lisp.html
I will add some to LispWiki also.
-
Good Job yuanqiu 8-)
-
This is an outstanding gesture and effort, but i still have a problem with the License.
Besides the fact that all that code is released under a ``Documentation License'' (like books and manuals) instead of a regular GNU type of license...[you] do realize that [you] can not use any of that code in a ``for sale -- no source'' type of condition right? Not to mention any derivative of any of that code must then be released under the exact same license.
For example I will take a very simple procedure found on that site.
Found here:
[ http://lispwiki.com/index.php5?title=Color_to_Bylayer ]
Orig:
(apply '(lambda ()
(defun *error* (msg)
(prin1 msg))
(setq uecho (getvar "cmdecho"))
(setvar "cmdecho" 0)
(prompt "\nSelect Items To Change To BYLAYER :")
;(setq ps1 (ssadd))
(setq ps1 (ssget))
(command "CHANGE" ps1 "" "P" "C" "BYLAYER" "LT" "BYLAYER" "")
(setvar "cmdecho" uecho)
)'())
Now lets clean up that code a bit for our imediate needs.
My Derivative:
( (lambda ( / *error* uecho ps1)
;; `apply' not necessary
;; localize vars
(defun *error* (msg)
(if (eq (logand (getvar "CMDACTIVE")) 1)
;; lets cancel any command still running...just in case!?
(repeat 2 (command)) )
(prin1 msg))
(setq uecho (getvar "cmdecho"))
(setvar "cmdecho" 0)
(prompt "\nSelect Items To Change To BYLAYER :")
(setq ps1 (ssget))
(if ps1
;; lets add a bit of error checking (crude but effective)
(command "CHANGE" ps1 "" "P" "C" "BYLAYER" "LT" "BYLAYER" ""))
(setvar "cmdecho" uecho)
(princ)) )
Now the orig was relased under the GNU doc licence, and so is mine. Not because I want it to be (i didnt want to give this code to my client who just paid $500 for this gem) but I have to.
Make your own and release it under the BSD License.
-
to prevent compatibilitie error...maybe this can help...
(command "._CHANGE" ps1 "" "_P" "_C" "_BYLAYER" "_LT" "_BYLAYER" "")
-
How can 10 lines of code be so unique that is is protected?
After all for a simple problem there are a finite number of solutions. Having never seen that solution it is very likely that on your own you would compose a code similar if not exactly like that solution.
-
How can 10 lines of code be so unique that is is protected?
After all for a simple problem there are a finite number of solutions. Having never seen that solution it is very likely that on your own you would compose a code similar if not exactly like that solution.
Yeah, almost my point exactly! And, why put a restrictive license on it in the first place? ...But non the less, the restriction is there.
There is something going on (or went on) with all that SCO stuff; i think the second party had to show how much they changed from the orig version, and if it was `enough' change then the code became `original'. For the life of me i cant remember what they called it.
-
The stupidity of the whole situation is that I (or anyone/someone else ) could conceivably write code that looks familiar/identical, without being aware that the posted code or license existed
How do I demonstrate that I didn't poach it ... and how do they prove I did.
-
I thought all you had to do to make something your own was change one thing. That's the way it is in the housing industry, no? I've seen plans that were an exact copy of someone else's, except the the new "version" had a bathroom adjusted.
-
Daron, Think concept not content. No one th
kbwdt, Thats the problem. The autolisp language is such a low level language, its almost pointless to place a restriction on the code.