Re: license of reference implementations shivers@xxxxxx 19 Dec 2000 06:09 UTC
I feel your pain. But it can't be helped. That's the history of the code. If anyone ever wants to write a code base under different copyright, I'll definitely be willing to put *my* code under additional ideologically correct copyright and advise on which parts of the code are which... So the KMP code won't have to be rewritten, thank your lucky stars. Also keep in mind that someone is going to have to completely rewrite the char-set code for 16-bit chars. That code can have different copyrights. But it should wait until bit vectors or bit sets are standardised, first. -Olin From: Per Bothner <email@example.com> The srfi-13 and srfi-14 reference implementations are claimed to have 'a "free software" copyright', I don't dispute that. However, I wonder whether the MIT license is compatible with the GPL: Are the following clauses permissible for GPL'd code? ;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to ;;; return to the MIT Scheme project any improvements or extensions that ;;; they make, so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) ;;; to inform MIT of noteworthy uses of this software. ;;; ;;; 3. All materials developed as a consequence of the use of this ;;; software shall duly acknowledge such use, in accordance with the usual ;;; standards of acknowledging credit in academic research. If not, it would seem to be illegal to use this code in a GPL'd program. The GNU license list (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) does not discuss this license. But, as examples, both version 1.0 and 1.1 of the Apcahe license are considered incompatible with the GPL. Of course whether the reference implementations license is incompatible with the GPL does not preclude finalizing these SRFIs. However, it does complicate the job of implementors. at least anybody whose is concientious (anal) about licenses.