> Which brings up an issue of licensing for both srfi-170.html and
> srfi-205.html.  How does it make sense for the former to start with a
> MIT license, followed by an updated to include us scsh BSD license?  How
> can anyone know what the first license applies to  since it's a scsh
> "derivative work <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work>", not
> an /ab initio/ product of our writings.
>
> Proposal: with the addition of the above, change the licence in
> srfi-205.html, BSD is open enough, drop the MIT license in srfi-170.html.

Arthur is the authority on this, but as far as I know:

Every SRFI document ever published has been under the MIT License, with
no exceptions; that license is obligated by the SRFI process.

Presumably the SRFI 170 document contains enough text from the scsh
manual that the extra BSD notice is needed to cover those parts.

Sample implementations don't have to be under the MIT license if code is
copied from an existing source. Do we have substantial code copied from
scsh? If so, the sample implementation's source tree needs a copy of the
BSD license. The SRFI document itself doesn't need to print the license
notice for the sample implementation if the document is not under that
license.

IMHO it would be useful to put a SPDX-License-Identifier at the top of
each source file in the sample implementation. That way it's clear which
license applies where. Much of the Scheme/Lisp community is pretty
informal with licensing practices, and there's a fair bit of code
copying with small modifications, so tracking down code heritage after
the fact can be difficult.