On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 3:06 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm afraid I have to disagree here.  If a sample implementation is licensed under a copyleft license and cannot be incorporated into a particular Scheme implementation because that implementation is not licensed under the GPL, it is the problem of that Scheme implementation, and the author must not be persuaded to choose a weaker license.  On the contrary, the Scheme implementer should be persuaded instead to choose the GPL.

Saying that someone MUST NOT be persuaded to do (or not do) something amounts to declaring counterarguments off-limits.  It is always appropriate to try to persuade a SRFI author of something: that's why we have the discussion period.

Furthermore, the SRFI collection is not a publicly writable space where anyone has the right to post anything.  There are already a large number of technical requirements, and limiting the licenses used is perfectly reasonable.  Until a while ago only one license was permitted; we have extended this to allow additional licenses *for pre-existing code* at the discretion of the Editor.  All newly written code remains acceptable only under the MIT license.

(Some may disagree with these ethical aspects, so in the end, it has to be up to the individual author of the sample implementation to decide whether a copyleft license or a weak free license is appropriate.)

Certainly.  But in that case the author needs to find a different venue to publish their proposal: it cannot be a SRFI.  For example, it can be published through Github or any similar platform.