Metaprogramming and Free Availability of Sources

[iepos@tunes.org]

> > some may feel they have a duty to always acknowledge the truth; however,
> > i feel that lies should only be punished in the case of a formal claims
> > (which would include people's claim as to who wrote what software, if
> > their claim was clearly of a formal nature);

> Yes. However, it could be considered that a public sale of software
> should include a compulsory formal claim about who its authors are...

hmm... I don't see why it needs to be compulsory when selling a product
(including software) to tell who originally made it or designed it.
if the buyers want to know who made it, then they'll buy from someone
who tells. considering that it does not take much effort on the seller's
part to keep track, most seller's of software would probably voluntarily
state the authors (but if they didn't, it would only be because the
users didn't demand it).

> > [About copyleft]
> > also, i've wondered why the american Libertarian Party has not taken
> > a stand on this issue?
> It can't be worse than in France, my friend,
> where the politicians most "actively" doing things for free software
> are the socialists in power. Go figure.

8( ... well maybe www.prolibertate.org will brighten your day (:-)).
anyway, it's not like the american Libertarian party really has much power
either.

on an entirely different note, i'm still trying to understand how the
generalization rule of logic can be done without (replaced by a small
set of simple axioms maybe) ... Curry seemed to hint that this axiom would
do the trick:

all \f.all \g.(all \x.f x -> g x) -> all f -> all g

but i don't quite see how. can you explain how to prove, say,
'(all \x.all \y.f x y) -> (all \x.all \y.f y x)' without using generalization?

thanx!  8-)

- iepos