Re: oaklisp: contains 500kB binary in source
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
source package; the source includes a interpreter and it would be a
relatively small matter to translate it from Oaklisp into RnRS Scheme.
Correct me if I am wrong, but AIUI if someone wants to package a GPLed
Java program that, as it is, currently runs only on a non-free VM, then
even its source package is (at most) contrib. Even if everyone agrees
that it would be a small matter to port it to a free VM, this is no
consideration until someone actually does so.
The only difference I can see here is that you might claim that Oaklisp
is already free. But that argument would be circular until someone
actually does what you say is possible.
All source is available: if you have any doubts at all you are ideally
situated to verify the system's integrity.
All source may be available or not; this is hard to tell until someone
actually tries what you say is possible. Bootstrapping might fail
because an Oaklisp-specific feature of the target system is subtly
implemented by the same feature in the host system, accidentally or not.
Stepping back a bit, maybe the question is, which side has the burden of
proof? The side arguing something is (or might be) free or the side
arguing something is not (or might not be)? In the case of Java
programs, main contains only what is free, not what might be free.
(Again, kindly correct me if I am wrong.)