Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: >> Every SRFI contains a reference implementation, and bears this >> copyright notice: >> >> Copyright (C) /author/ (/year/). All Rights Reserved. >> >> This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to >> others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain >> it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, >> published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction >> of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this >> paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. >> 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. >> >> The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be >> revoked by the authors or their successors or assigns. >> >> This document and the information contained herein is provided on >> an "AS IS" basis and THE AUTHOR AND THE SRFI EDITORS DISCLAIM ALL >> WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY >> WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE >> ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS >> FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. >> >> Is a scheme implementation that includes the reference implementation >> DFSG-free (providing the rest of the implementation is, obviously)? > > No, unfortunatly, because irregardless of the FAQ, the license is > contradictory, and seemlingly violates DFSG #3. [Unless there is a > provision which I am missing to license the actual implementation of a > reference implementation separately... Could you provide reference to > the "procedures for copyrights defined in the SRFI process"?]
I strongly disagree: the license is just saying that you can't publish a derivative work of SRFI X as SRFI X, and are otherwise free to derive works. Looks like an ideal license for standards documents, really, which does everything this community has been asking for. > Moreover, there's nothing in this document that gives you the right to > modify outside of creating "derivative works that comment on or > otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation." [You could > argue, I suppose, that any dirivative work explains the work its > derived from, but if that's the tack to take, why not just say it?] I would think "assist in its implementation" would cover most software, but... yeah, it would be nicer if it were made more broad. >> In the case of scsh, which includes some of these reference >> implementations, upstream's opinion is that what the license means is >> "the copyright needs to remain intact", not "the code cannot change". > > I'm personally not convinced of that, but it's possible I can be > swayed. > > > Don Armstrong