Lionel Elie Mamane <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> 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?
I have checked this in the meantime: they have implemented the SRFIs in
> 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.
No, the SRFI document has it's own copyright statement. I've asked
Will Fitzgerald, the author of SRFI-19, about this. He also pointed me
to the SRFI FAQ at
which explains the meaning of the copyright statement. The reference
implementation of SRFI-19 is "free".