scsh-users
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: possible licensing issues with some scsh source files

To: Lionel Elie Mamane <lmamane-scsh-list-2003-10-29@conuropsis.org>
Subject: Re: possible licensing issues with some scsh source files
From: Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:22:01 +0100
Cc: scsh@zurich.csail.mit.edu, joostvb-scsh-list-2003-10-29@conuropsis.org
Lionel Elie Mamane <lmamane-scsh-list-2003-10-29@conuropsis.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
C...

> Daniel Kobras launched a discussion on this license on the
> debian-legal mailing list. You can read it at:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200311/msg00190.html
>
>>> ;; 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 
>> other
>> ;; 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

<http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-faq.html>

which explains the meaning of the copyright statement. The reference
implementation of SRFI-19 is "free".

--
Martin

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>