Well, of course, but if the implementation has to be non-portable, it has to be (and there will be a bunch of those in the Green Edition). But it doesn't have to be blocked by licensing issues.
Licensing issues are not completely unrelated. For example, a sample implementation for a SRFI providing access to the GNU readline library has to be distributed under the GPL. We should not exclude this possibility.
On 3/15/19 2:34 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> It's more about being able to integrate the code into a Scheme implementation that is itself BSD vel sim.
If a Scheme implementation just ships GPL'd code so that it can be loaded by Scheme programs, this would probably not make the implementation a derived work of the GPL'd code. (For example, the GCC is not a derived work of the GNU libc.)
Of course, Scheme programs loading or linking that GPL'd code have to be GPL'd as well.
In any case, I think this is an advantage, not a disadvantage. :)
Marc
Remember, a SRFI need not have a "portable Scheme implementation" or even
a "mostly-portable solution". It can even be (though "least preferred") an
"outline of how it might be implemented."
So there is no guarantee of "being able to integrate the code into a Scheme implementation"
at all.
--
--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/