> I have a question which may be related: Is there anything like an owner
> of the name "Scheme"? It seems that the name is not protected in the
> sense that everyone can call their product "XXX-Scheme" (which is a good
> thing, in my opinion, but that's, of course, debatable.)
>
> But what about entities like the Scheme Steering Committee or the names
> under which the de-facto standards RnRS appear? Couldn't anyone write a
> paper and call it the R8RS? While such a paper may not be very
> influential if published out of context, it could be if published by a
> strong group. Say, a number of implementers of R7RS (small) could join
> forces and work on a R7.1RS without involving any Scheme Language
> Steering Commitee.

Unless there is a trademark, no-one has legal clout to stop anyone from
using naming things Scheme.

> In some sense, this is a good thing because beginning with the R6RS each
> de-facto standard has been representing only a fraction of the
> community. This is equally true for the various steering committees
> since then.

It may be good to have the option of forming a splinter group from the
Steering Committee as a last resort, but that should be avoided at all
costs.

> On the other hand, it would be great if at least this
> Scheme.org initiative could embrace all groups.

I agree that this should be our first priority.

As it stands, the outsider's view of Scheme is a split language. Newbies
don't understand why there are two standards, R6RS and R7RS. Let's do
our part with Scheme.org not to cause further divisions.