On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 10:37, Alex Miller <alex@puredanger.com> wrote:
> clj is not packaged with rlwrap, but will use it if it's available (and won't if it's not - it's optional).
Thank you very much for your reply, Alex.
>From what I could see from `clj`'s source code, I understood the following:
If `rlwrap` is present, `clj` will run `clojure` wrapped with it - if
`rlrwarp` is not present, `clj` will direct the user to (literally)
"install rlwrap for command editing or use `clojure` instead".
Is this right?
Because, if so, then, `clj`'s sole objective would be to allow the
user to use `rlwrap` to run `clojure`, right?
If so, then I can clearly differentiate two similar yet different use cases:
UC1) running `clojure` exclusively by itself (implemented by the
`clojure` command)
UC2) running `clojure` exctlusively wrapped with `rlwrap` (implemented
by the `clj` script)
The fact that the UC2's implementation's existence (`clj`) depends on
`rlwrap` reminds me to the discussion in pointed to before [1].
[1]: https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/-/blob/master/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL
Have you already read the arguments stated there?
(In case you haven't done it already, I strongly yet humbly advise you
to do so).
Dear Alex: I am well aware that licensing can be considered a thorny
subject by some people. Again, I'm here as a mere Clojure fan trying
his best so the full Clojure CLI functionality is available in Debian.
And my objective is simply to raise (only in the case I am right!)
*what I consider* could become a *potentially important* legal issue.
Nothing more.
...But nothing less.
All that being said, as I have stated before I am not a lawyer, and
this is no legal advise. After all, I could be completely wrong about
all this...
Best,
Leandro