scsh-users
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: possible licensing issues with some scsh source files

To: Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Subject: Re: possible licensing issues with some scsh source files
From: Lionel Elie Mamane <lmamane-scsh-list-2003-10-29@conuropsis.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:00:54 +0100
Cc: scsh@zurich.csail.mit.edu, joostvb-scsh-list-2003-10-29@conuropsis.org
Sender: Lionel Elie Mamane <master@tofu.mamane.lu>
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:22:01PM +0100, Martin Gasbichler wrote:
> Lionel Elie Mamane <lmamane-scsh-list-2003-10-29@conuropsis.org> writes:

>>> ;; 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".

Debian has in the past clung to "what's written in the license counts,
not what the author meant by it". OK, I'll present the case to
debian-legal, I hope they will come to the same conclusion as the
lawyers the SRFI editors consulted.

-- 
Lionel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: possible licensing issues with some scsh source files, Lionel Elie Mamane <=