srfi licensing

Following a discussion on debian-legal, I took a look over our SRFI 
files. The following implementations have copyright problems. They 
might not be free software. Please can you look at their copyright 
notices and tell me whether you agree or why I'm wrong. Please do not 
read the code yet. We might have to reimplement some from scratch, 
although I hope not.

  2 (No copyright notice)
  4 (No copyright notice)
  5 (Copyright asserted, but no rights granted)
  7 (No copyright notice)
  8 (No copyright notice)
  9 (No copyright notice)
  17 (Copyright asserted and all rights reserved!)
  19 (SRFI standards document copyright: no permission to modify)
  25 (No copyright notice)
  26 (No copyright notice)
  29 (Copyright asserted and all rights reserved and then LGPL!)
  31 (Copyright asserted and all rights reserved!)

1, 13 and 14 are fine. 19 is an interesting problem. Does anyone know 
what the SRFI editors think about this? It seems that the SRFI 
standards document copyright licence is not a free software licence. 
An obvious fix is to use a free software licence instead, and protect 
the integrity of the standards by endorsing the official version 
(digital signatures perhaps?) and requiring the endorsement to be 
removed from derived works.

-- 
MJR/slef     My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [email protected]
  Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/


-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn