On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> The main trick is to distinguish between the original full text SRFI
> ("the document") and the free software (document that excerpts or
> derives from the document).
Sure, but if you take that tack, the prohibition of modification of
"the document" becomes, in effect, a no-op.
You can take excerpts of the document, modify them, slap some more
changes on them, and then call it SRFI foo. According to this theory,
it's no longer "the document."
> Another way is to claim that the SRFI license explicitly permits
> placing the derived document (the original implementation that copied
> the SRFI mostly verbatim) under a different, directly DFSG free
> license such as BSD or GPL, and that once this is done, the SRFI
> license cannot block further modification under the new license.
It's not acceptable to consider phrases of a license in isolation.
When a phrase conflicts, we must assume the most conservative
interpretation, baring legally binding clarification directly from the
copyright holder.
Owing to this problem, it is not possible to relicense a work under
the SRFI under another license, if the other license is in conflict
with the terms of the SRFI. Both the BSD and GPL licenses are in
conflict with the terms of the SRFI.
Don Armstrong
--
I now know how retro SCOs OSes are. Riotous, riotous stuff. How they
had the ya-yas to declare Linux an infant OS in need of their IP is
beyond me. Upcoming features? PAM. files larger than 2 gigs. NFS over
TCP. The 80's called, they want their features back.
-- Compactable Dave http://www3.sympatico.ca/dcarpeneto/sco.html
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature