Hi John! I am just putting my thoughts he, as I do not decide these matters of course:
I think in this case, it might be a good idea to make sure, that guile-json runs on all Schemes implementing a standard level and keep it free software, to avoid the problem of people grabbing it and making it proprietary software. If it is that standard conform, it would hopefully require no effort to use the library in other Schemes. Then the only obstacle would be finding the repository and downloading the code. Not sure how standard Guile's module system is, but maybe one could use a module system from the SRFIs to get more compatibility with other Scheme dialects. What would be the effects of guile-json being dual-licensed? If the implementation for an SRFI is under MIT, cannot people take that instead of the original guile-json repository and make it proprietary? How could the dual license work, so that we still make sure, that guile-json can only be used as free software? Regards, Zelphir On 11/6/19 3:36 PM, John Cowan wrote: > The MIT license is required for all SRFIs, both texts and > implementations: the exact wording appears at the end of every SRFI, > and is adjusted over time as the MIT license changes (very slightly). > I wasn't there at the time, but it was probably adopted because MIT, > like BSD, is a universal donor: it can be incorporated into software > that is preponderantly under any other license. Chicken, for > instance, is under the BSD license, but you can compile and distribute > a Chicken program under any license — unless it incorporates one of > the 31 GPLed eggs. > > What looks like a commons from inside the GNUverse looks more like a > walled garden to the rest of FLOSS. > > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:19 AM Zelphir Kaltstahl > <zelphirkaltst...@posteo.de <mailto:zelphirkaltst...@posteo.de>> wrote: > > Hi! > > What is the requirement in terms of licenses for SRFI implementations? > > I personally think that MIT is a terrible license (one of the I don't > care licenses) as it does not make sure, that modifications flow > back to > the community. Do SRFIs require MIT license? And if so, why? > > ~ Zelphir > > On 11/6/19 1:28 AM, John Cowan wrote: > > +1. If only it weren't GPL3, which makes it ineligible to be a SRFI > > implementation.... > > > > Is there any chance of dual-licensing it under MIT? > > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Zelphir Kaltstahl > <zelphirkaltst...@posteo.de <mailto:zelphirkaltst...@posteo.de>> > > wrote: > > > >> This is great! A solid JSON parsing and outputting library is > important > >> for a programming language these days! Thanks for your work! > >> > >> On 11/5/19 6:00 PM, guile-user-requ...@gnu.org > <mailto:guile-user-requ...@gnu.org> wrote: > >>> Message: 1 > >>> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 22:28:12 -0800 > >>> From: Aleix Conchillo Flaqué <aconchi...@gmail.com > <mailto:aconchi...@gmail.com>> > >>> To: guile-user <guile-user@gnu.org <mailto:guile-user@gnu.org>> > >>> Subject: [ANN] guile-json 3.3.0 released > >>> Message-ID: > >>> < > >> > ca+xasouhwaqapqvpqqg5suermoe9pkydfm57ng679pgsy5e...@mail.gmail.com > > <mailto:ca%2bxasouhwaqapqvpqqg5suermoe9pkydfm57ng679pgsy5e...@mail.gmail.com>> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I'm pleased to announce guile-json 3.3.0. This new version > comes with a > >> few > >>> improvements: guile-json will now throw an exception if the > native scheme > >>> value used to build a JSON document is invalid (this is done > before > >>> printing any JSON). Also, an additional key argument > #:validate can be > >>> given to ignore the validation in the case performance is > important and > >> the > >>> data is known to be valid. Empty JSON array slots are also > considered > >>> invalid, before they were generating an invalid scheme > representation. A > >>> few more details can be found on the NEWS file. > >>> > >>> https://github.com/aconchillo/guile-json > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Aleix > >> >
