Re: srfi licensing
MJ Ray <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.schematics |
|---|---|
| Organization | Very poor |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2004-01-29 15:44:35 +0000 Michael Sperber <sperber-jNDFPZUTrfQQDnmTUQnR1uqEdJ8o/[email protected]> wrote: > Both. I actually find the license clear enough. OK, but I do not. It is contradictory and I do not agree with your interpretation, because it goes against my experience of these contradictions. I need more evidence. > MJ> If someone posts their replies (with permission) to debian-legal, > MJ> it would probably help inform the discussion. > I'll try to dredge it up when I have time; but I'm really getting > tired of spending effort on these morons. Thank you; I enjoy being called a moron and find it really helps a discussion(!) Seriously, there is either a misunderstanding or a bug. Please help me to fix whichever it is. > Yes; the purpose is to prevent people from saying that a modified > version is indeed the original. That is better done by other methods. If someone is going to misrepresent the SRFI editors, they're probably not going to care about the copyright. > Yeah, they're (as is) covered by the MIT license, which isn't free > according to Debian. However, Chris Hanson made the code available > under a BSD license recently---but that was in a private email to us, > so the Debian folks probably don't know this yet. I'll look into this further, but it would be good to publish it. -- 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