Old APL Stuff

Some of older APL material isn't in standard archives. Some appears form
time to time and some disappears.

2 current examples from the past which can still be had:

An APL Machine paper
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wra...slac-r-114.pdf

Multics APL Listings
http://web.mit.edu/multics-history/s...s_sources.html
(need to search for many files in numerous directories)


Others which have disappeared from sites recently:

EMPL: http://www.signiform.com/erik/programs/empl/

MAPL: http://www.dunfield.com/downloads.htm

On Jun 6, 2:57*am, APL Enthusiast <a...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Some of older APL material isn't in standard archives. Some appears form
> time to time and some disappears.
>
> 2 current examples from the past which can still be had:
>
> An APL Machine paperhttp://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-r-114.pdf
>
> Multics APL Listingshttp://web.mit.edu/multics-history/source/Multics_Internet_Server/Mul...
> (need to search for many files in numerous directories)
>
> Others which have disappeared from sites recently:
>
> EMPL:http://www.signiform.com/erik/programs/empl/
>
> MAPL:http://www.dunfield.com/downloads.htm

This might be something that the BAA could take further. The Vector
web site already has an archive (primarily for back issues) but there
is no reason why suitable contant could not be added from other
sources. I will discuss further with Stephen Taylor to see what we
might be prepared to do to and how content can be povided and
delivered.

On Jun 9, 12:31*am, paulg <p...@optima-systems.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2:57*am, APL Enthusiast <a...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Some of older APL material isn't in standard archives. Some appears form
> > time to time and some disappears.
>
.....
> > (need to search for many files in numerous directories)

> This might be something that the BAA could take further.

Two comments :

- the proceedings of the Apl conferences would be an excellent place
to start - I remember I highly prized our library copy of '73 .... and
still use the fft code.

- If you are looking for an easy way to generate an html index to a
deep directory structure of files, to add new items in arbitrary
places, and to serve the updates to the internet, I have a suitable
recursive Apl function - see the monthly KentFolk News archives :
http://www.kentfolk.com/News/ or http://www.kentfolk.com/#GigNews
(after February 2006).

cheers,

Beau Webber

The problem with alot of these are that they are copyrighted (e.g., EMPL
and MAPL are two examples).

Most of the preceedings are on the Internet, just with copyrights.

Many are sitting in the ACM archives, with payment needed for access (an
on an article basis).

J.B.W.Webber@kent.ac.uk wrote:
> On Jun 9, 12:31 am, paulg <p...@optima-systems.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 2:57 am, APL Enthusiast <a...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Some of older APL material isn't in standard archives. Some appears form
>>> time to time and some disappears.
> .....
>>> (need to search for many files in numerous directories)
>
>> This might be something that the BAA could take further.
>
> Two comments :
>
> - the proceedings of the Apl conferences would be an excellent place
> to start - I remember I highly prized our library copy of '73 .... and
> still use the fft code.
>
> - If you are looking for an easy way to generate an html index to a
> deep directory structure of files, to add new items in arbitrary
> places, and to serve the updates to the internet, I have a suitable
> recursive Apl function - see the monthly KentFolk News archives :
> http://www.kentfolk.com/News/ or http://www.kentfolk.com/#GigNews
> (after February 2006).
>
> cheers,
>
> Beau Webber
>

On Jun 10, 11:14 pm, APL Enthusiast <a...@swbell.net> wrote:
> The problem with alot of these are that they are copyrighted (e.g., EMPL
> and MAPL are two examples).
>
> Most of the preceedings are on the Internet, just with copyrights.
>
> Many are sitting in the ACM archives, with payment needed for access (an
> on an article basis).

That might be mainly a side-effect of the former predominance of
journals as the medium for sharing information. Material submitted
would routinely be copyrighted and later appeared on the Web only in
closed gardens protected by subscriptions. (Vector has been an
exception to this.)

My point is that there might not be any serious intent to protect the
code, and original authors, if reached, might well supply code that
could be shared on the APL Wiki.

Stephen Taylor

editor@vector.org.uk
http://www.vector.org.uk/
http://aplwiki.aplteam.com/

Keywords:
In article <8676ae0f-8342-4673-ac06-6e83ee5b74fa@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "Stephen Taylor <editor@vector.org.uk>" <StephenTaylorFRSA@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 10, 11:14 pm, APL Enthusiast <a...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> The problem with alot of these are that they are copyrighted (e.g., EMPL
>> and MAPL are two examples).
>>
>> Most of the preceedings are on the Internet, just with copyrights.
>>
>> Many are sitting in the ACM archives, with payment needed for access (an
>> on an article basis).
>
>That might be mainly a side-effect of the former predominance of
>journals as the medium for sharing information. Material submitted
>would routinely be copyrighted and later appeared on the Web only in
>closed gardens protected by subscriptions. (Vector has been an
>exception to this.)
>
>My point is that there might not be any serious intent to protect the
>code, and original authors, if reached, might well supply code that
>could be shared on the APL Wiki.

I'm wrestling with this issue at the moment. I have a 1970's circuit
analysis workspace that was originally written in IBM mainframe APL.
It was a joint effort between a professor at Rutgers University and a
fellow at the David Sarnoff Research Center. With the professor's
permission, I re-wrote the code (significantly) to run on APL*PLUS/PC in
the early 90's. The manual(which is also quite extensive) has NO
copyright claim whatsoever.

I would like to include the code & manual in the public domain collection
I have been assembling (http://www.marthallama.org). The professor
retired years ago, and the fellow from Sarnoff has vanished without a
trace. I managed to get the OK from Rutgers to place it in the public
domain, but Sarnoff has been bought & sold a few times and is now part of
SRI. They no longer do any work related to the original program. I've
sent them several emails, and they can't be bothered to reply. Placing
things in the public domain at best gets them a tiny amount of positive
publicity, and making any sort of official decision is a lot of work in
some places.

So now I'm a bit stuck. I would really like to be able to put the code &
manual up with a definitive free & clear pedigree. It appears that I
will never be able to get a positive answer, and I suspect if I push any
harder they will take the easy way out & say NO. However, if Sarnoff
can't be bothered to reply to my emails, it is unlikely that they can be
bothered to raise a fuss if I just forge ahead.

The best plan I can come up with is to say that I have permission from
Rutgers, and that Sarnoff has no objections to releasing it into the
public domain.

There is a LOT of perfectly useful code & documentation floating around.
Some stuff I know existed at one time has been lost to the mists of time,
which I find very annoying. Almost as annoying is having material that
nobody is EVER going to make a nickle off of that you legally can't make
available for fear of being sued. Even if you try very hard to do the
right thing and get all the necessary permissions, it is not a simple
process. I've been working for about 6 years to get MIT and the Airforce
to release all of the MARTHA & LLAMA code and documentation. If I didn't
have folks on the inside pushing as well, it never would have happened.

Doug White

On Jun 12, 8:06*pm, gwh...@alum.mit.edu (Doug White) wrote:
> Keywords:
> In article <8676ae0f-8342-4673-ac06-6e83ee5b7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "Stephen Taylor <edi...@vector.org.uk>" <StephenTaylorF...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jun 10, 11:14 pm, APL Enthusiast <a...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >> The problem with alot of these are that they are copyrighted (e.g., EMPL
> >> and MAPL are two examples).
>
> >> Most of the preceedings are on the Internet, just with copyrights.
>
> >> Many are sitting in the ACM archives, with payment needed for access (an
> >> on an article basis).
>
> >That might be mainly a side-effect of the former predominance of
> >journals as the medium for sharing information. Material submitted
> >would routinely be copyrighted and later appeared on the Web only in
> >closed gardens protected by subscriptions. (Vector has been an
> >exception to this.)
>
> >My point is that there might not be any serious intent to protect the
> >code, and original authors, if reached, might well supply code that
> >could be shared on the APL Wiki.
>
> I'm wrestling with this issue at the moment. *I have a 1970's circuit
> analysis workspace that was originally written in IBM mainframe APL. *
> It was a joint effort between a professor at Rutgers University and a
> fellow at the David Sarnoff Research Center. *With the professor's
> permission, I re-wrote the code (significantly) to run on APL*PLUS/PC in
> the early 90's. *The manual(which is also quite extensive) has NO
> copyright claim whatsoever.
>
> I would like to include the code & manual in the public domain collection
> I have been assembling (http://www.marthallama.org). *The professor
> retired years ago, and the fellow from Sarnoff has vanished without a
> trace. *I managed to get the OK from Rutgers to place it in the public
> domain, but Sarnoff has been bought & sold a few times and is now part of
> SRI. *They no longer do any work related to the original program. *I've
> sent them several emails, and they can't be bothered to reply. *Placing
> things in the public domain at best gets them a tiny amount of positive
> publicity, and making any sort of official decision is a lot of work in
> some places.
>
> So now I'm a bit stuck. *I would really like to be able to put the code &
> manual up with a definitive free & clear pedigree. *It appears that I
> will never be able to get a positive answer, and I suspect if I push any
> harder they will take the easy way out & say NO. * However, if Sarnoff
> can't be bothered to reply to my emails, it is unlikely that they can be
> bothered to raise a fuss if I just forge ahead.
>
> The best plan I can come up with is to say that I have permission from
> Rutgers, and that Sarnoff has no objections to releasing it into the
> public domain.
>
> There is a LOT of perfectly useful code & documentation floating around. *
> Some stuff I know existed at one time has been lost to the mists of time,
> which I find very annoying. *Almost as annoying is having material that
> nobody is EVER going to make a nickle off of that you legally can't make
> available for fear of being sued. *Even if you try very hard to do the
> right thing and get all the necessary permissions, it is not a simple
> process. *I've been working for about 6 years to get MIT and the Airforce
> to release all of the MARTHA & LLAMA code and documentation. *If I didn't
> have folks on the inside pushing as well, it never would have happened.
>
> Doug White

Keep at it. Remember that Dr. Schelter spent years and finally
succeeded in getting DOE to release MAXIMA, the famous symbolic
math system, now enjoyed and used by thousands.

CJ

On Jun 13, 8:55*pm, Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 8:06*pm, gwh...@alum.mit.edu (Doug White) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Keywords:
> > In article <8676ae0f-8342-4673-ac06-6e83ee5b7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "Stephen Taylor <edi...@vector.org.uk>" <StephenTaylorF...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Jun 10, 11:14 pm, APL Enthusiast <a...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > >> The problem with alot of these are that they are copyrighted (e.g., EMPL
> > >> and MAPL are two examples).
>
> > >> Most of the preceedings are on the Internet, just with copyrights.
>
> > >> Many are sitting in the ACM archives, with payment needed for access(an
> > >> on an article basis).
>
> > >That might be mainly a side-effect of the former predominance of
> > >journals as the medium for sharing information. Material submitted
> > >would routinely be copyrighted and later appeared on the Web only in
> > >closed gardens protected by subscriptions. (Vector has been an
> > >exception to this.)
>
> > >My point is that there might not be any serious intent to protect the
> > >code, and original authors, if reached, might well supply code that
> > >could be shared on the APL Wiki.
>
> > I'm wrestling with this issue at the moment. *I have a 1970's circuit
> > analysis workspace that was originally written in IBM mainframe APL. *
> > It was a joint effort between a professor at Rutgers University and a
> > fellow at the David Sarnoff Research Center. *With the professor's
> > permission, I re-wrote the code (significantly) to run on APL*PLUS/PC in
> > the early 90's. *The manual(which is also quite extensive) has NO
> > copyright claim whatsoever.
>
> > I would like to include the code & manual in the public domain collection
> > I have been assembling (http://www.marthallama.org). *The professor
> > retired years ago, and the fellow from Sarnoff has vanished without a
> > trace. *I managed to get the OK from Rutgers to place it in the public
> > domain, but Sarnoff has been bought & sold a few times and is now part of
> > SRI. *They no longer do any work related to the original program. *I've
> > sent them several emails, and they can't be bothered to reply. *Placing
> > things in the public domain at best gets them a tiny amount of positive
> > publicity, and making any sort of official decision is a lot of work in
> > some places.
>
> > So now I'm a bit stuck. *I would really like to be able to put the code &
> > manual up with a definitive free & clear pedigree. *It appears that I
> > will never be able to get a positive answer, and I suspect if I push any
> > harder they will take the easy way out & say NO. * However, if Sarnoff
> > can't be bothered to reply to my emails, it is unlikely that they can be
> > bothered to raise a fuss if I just forge ahead.
>
> > The best plan I can come up with is to say that I have permission from
> > Rutgers, and that Sarnoff has no objections to releasing it into the
> > public domain.
>
> > There is a LOT of perfectly useful code & documentation floating around.. *
> > Some stuff I know existed at one time has been lost to the mists of time,
> > which I find very annoying. *Almost as annoying is having material that
> > nobody is EVER going to make a nickle off of that you legally can't make
> > available for fear of being sued. *Even if you try very hard to do the
> > right thing and get all the necessary permissions, it is not a simple
> > process. *I've been working for about 6 years to get MIT and the Airforce
> > to release all of the MARTHA & LLAMA code and documentation. *If I didn't
> > have folks on the inside pushing as well, it never would have happened.
>
> > Doug White
>
> Keep at it. *Remember that Dr. Schelter spent years and finally
> succeeded in getting DOE to release MAXIMA, the famous symbolic
> math system, now enjoyed and used by thousands.
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The BAA would certainly be interested in holding onto and archiving
suitable material. Those of you who are listening on this thread may
like to look on the 'community' section in the vector.org.uk website
where a small number of pointers to existing libraries can be found.

we would encourage anyone with other locations of interest to submit
them to us so that they can be incorporated.

Kai Jaeger's APL Wiki may be a good place to put specific code samples
and explanations.

Is there someone out there who would like to take on the role of
compiling this information for inclusion?

All ideas and suggestions gratefully received