On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 09:19:33AM +0100, Martin Gasbichler wrote:
> Lionel Elie Mamane <email@example.com> writes:
>> scsh-0.6.4/scheme/big/sort.scm :
>> ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
>> ;;; to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
>> ;;; so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform
>> ;;; the T Project of noteworthy uses of this software.
>> ;;; 3. All materials developed as a consequence of the use of this software
>> ;;; shall duly acknowledge such use, in accordance with the usual
>> ;;; of acknowledging credit in academic research.
> As far as I know, there is no longer a T project at yale so I guess we
> would have to ask all the authors.
>> srfi/srfi-13.scm and srfi-14.scm contain similar stuff, with the MIT
>> scheme project instead of T Project at Yale.
> How do other scheme implementations such as guile deal with this
> issue? Did they reimplement the whole reference implementation of
> the SRFIs?
I planned to ask the Guile people, but I must admit to myself that
currently, I don't have the time, either. Daniel Kobras, will you try
to find out?
Daniel Kobras launched a discussion on this license on the
debian-legal mailing list. You can read it at:
>> ;; However, this document itself may not be modified in any way
>> Urgh... This suggests one is totally forbidden to change this file!
>> But I have some doubts that this is really the copyright notice of
>> the SRFI implemented there, not of the implementation itself. But
>> why is this copyright notice there, in the implementation?
> Because it's the original reference implementation. However, the
> full sentence you quoted is
> ;; However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by
> ;; removing the copyright notice or references to the Scheme Request For
> ;; Implementation process or editors, except as needed for the purpose of
> ;; developing SRFIs in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in
> the SRFI
> ;; process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages
> ;; than English.
> which I read as the usual "the copyright needs to remain intact".
Hmm. "This document" refers to the copyright license? This is highly
unclear to me. My interpretation was more along the lines of "this
document" = the SRFI standard document.