Re: SRFI copyright license
Don Armstrong <email@example.com> 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
> Don Armstrong