Lionel Elie Mamane <lmamane-scsh@conuropsis.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 01:28:11PM -0700, Brian D. Carlstrom wrote:
>> Lionel Elie Mamane writes:
>
>>> The things in "doc/" from the tarball don't seem to bear a license
>>> of their own. Does this mean they are under the license in
>>> "COPYING" (the 3-clause BSD-ish license)?
>
>> That is my feeling. The authors of the manual are listed below, I
>> believe they all agree.
>
>> \author{Olin Shivers, Brian D.~Carlstrom, Martin Gasbichler, and
>> Mike Sperber}
>
> We also have Richard Kelsey and Jonathan Rees for the scheme48
> manual. And Olin Shivers also has the scsh-paper, and Mike Sperber a
> chapter of the scheme48 manual.
>
> You say you *believe* they all agree, so I understand you don't *know*
> them to agree. In this case, I'd feel most safe if the five remaining
> people confirmed that they agree.
I hereby agree.
As I said some months ago, Olin granted me the right to change the
licences on his behalf to fit our needs, so he hereby agrees, too ;-)
>
> OK, now for the "small annoying cases":
>
> - doc/meeting.ps: no visible source. No source, thus non-free. Unless
> ... err... Jonathan Rees typed the Postscript directly in a text
> editor (or something like that), that is.
>
> Johnathan, are you willing to provide the TeX source (and put it
> under the scsh license)? (Do you still have it?)
Richard and Jonathan are not on this list. I'll forward your messages
to them.
> That file is, I guess, not critical for scsh. Simply removing it
> from the Debian package will be fine.
>
> - doc/scsh-paper/mitlogo.ps
>
> Same story, except I guess that "the source" will be more difficult
> to get at, that you guys probably don't have copyright over that
> logo, etc.
>
> An acceptable work-around would be to remove that file from the
> Debian package, and recompile the paper without it. Or replace it
> with the text "MIT" or such.
>
Yes.
--
Martin
|