On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 4:50 AM Jakub T. Jankiewicz - jcubic at onet.pl (via srfi-discuss list) <xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org> wrote:

 

No, SRFI code that doesn't contain its own license is covered under the standard MIT license.There's a project underway to add SPDX license declarations to all SRFIs, but it's going to take a while.

A couple of months ago I posted to this list in the discussion of SPDX declarations  that the copyright notices in srfi-38 saying "all rights reserved (c) Ray Dillinger" are errors and that the code in that SRFI should be licensed under the standard MIT license instead.  I never got a response of any kind and the copyright notices are still there.

I reiterate the point that no implementor ought to be using that code, because an implementor can make code that has much better performance by imposing a full ordering on cons cells (such as by memory address) to facilitate binary searches. But the code in the SRFI is portable. It doesn't take advantage of any access to that information and therefore has very bad performance.  It is provided primarily as a specification to test against.

Ray Dillinger