Scheme.org: Protecting Scheme's name for the next 20 years
Lassi Kortela
(22 Nov 2020 21:54 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme.org: Protecting Scheme's name for the next 20 years
Amirouche Boubekki
(24 Nov 2020 09:45 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme.org: Protecting Scheme's name for the next 20 years
Lassi Kortela
(24 Nov 2020 11:37 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme.org: Protecting Scheme's name for the next 20 years
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(01 Dec 2020 17:02 UTC)
|
Who owns Scheme? Lassi Kortela (01 Dec 2020 17:32 UTC)
|
Re: Who owns Scheme?
John Cowan
(01 Dec 2020 18:28 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme.org: Protecting Scheme's name for the next 20 years
Arthur A. Gleckler
(01 Dec 2020 18:45 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme.org: Protecting Scheme's name for the next 20 years
Amirouche Boubekki
(24 Dec 2020 14:31 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme.org: Protecting Scheme's name for the next 20 years
Lassi Kortela
(27 Dec 2020 14:02 UTC)
|
Who owns Scheme? Lassi Kortela 01 Dec 2020 17:32 UTC
> 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.