Hi Niels, On Sun, 22 Jun 2014, Niels Thykier wrote:
AFAICT this license explicitly forbids modification and therefore fails to meet the DFSG §3. If you disagree with our assertion, then I recommend we pass it by the FTP masters, who are the authority on this. Should they disagree with our assertion as well, we will amend the check.
a similar discussion for another scheme package has happened some time ago[1]. As the licenses of these SRFI and scm files have been changed meanwhile, the mentioned entry of the FAQ is no longer available on the given link to the website. But you can find the old version in the internet archive[2].
According to the FAQ, the SRFI X is the standard that is used to develop the srfi-X.scm. So the standard must not be changed but you can do whatever you like with the implementation (which is actually distributed).
I agree that the wording is strange but given that extra explanation of the FAQ I would accept such a package nowadays. As I might be biased, if you insist I will ask the other members of the FTP team about their opinion.
Anyway, as I need to adapt debian/copyright to current licenses, I think the problem will go away on its own and you might not need to add an exception for this special case ...
Thorsten [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg00326.html [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20031204204933/http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-faq.html