Re: srfi licensing
Michael Sperber <sperber-jNDFPZUTrfQQDnmTUQnR1uqEdJ8o/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.schematics |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>>>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <[email protected]> writes: MJ> Following a discussion on debian-legal, I took a look over our SRFI MJ> files. The following implementations have copyright problems. They MJ> might not be free software. Please can you look at their copyright MJ> notices and tell me whether you agree or why I'm wrong. Please do not MJ> read the code yet. We might have to reimplement some from scratch, MJ> although I hope not. MJ> 2 (No copyright notice) MJ> 4 (No copyright notice) MJ> 5 (Copyright asserted, but no rights granted) MJ> 7 (No copyright notice) MJ> 8 (No copyright notice) MJ> 9 (No copyright notice) MJ> 17 (Copyright asserted and all rights reserved!) MJ> 19 (SRFI standards document copyright: no permission to modify) MJ> 25 (No copyright notice) MJ> 26 (No copyright notice) MJ> 29 (Copyright asserted and all rights reserved and then LGPL!) MJ> 31 (Copyright asserted and all rights reserved!) Let me suggest that those you say don't have a copyright notice (and the reference implementations among them in general) are indeed covered by the SRFI copyright notice (definitely those that were inlined in a SRFI document). The jury's on debian-legal is still out on whether the SRFI license indeed makes for free software. Three lawyers we had look at the license say it is; most of those on debian-legal say it isn't. These guys are really turning into a plague. I'm losing patience with them. (I'm suprised they think 13 and 14 are OK---they weren't OK with scsh.) -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla ------------------------------------------------------- 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