Speaking personally, I have very little interest in debates about choice of specific license, but as WG2 chair I wanted to add this:

For us it’s important that the licence attached to sample implementations allows the SRFI sample implementation to be used as a base for a sample implementation for the corresponding R7RS Large version of a library.

We haven’t actually discussed yet what licence the R7RS Large sample implementations will appear under, but I suspect it will be a maximally permissive and GPL-compatible licence because they should be usable by Schemes with all sorts of different licensing arrangements. (The ideal solution from that point of view might actually be CC0/public domain, but this is flatly impossible unless we actually produce new sample implementations of everything *or* persuade the relevant SRFI sample implementation authors to apply this to their work.)

The MIT licence applied to all sample impls (of libraries that will end up in R7 Large) would be okay. (I actually thought this was already a requirement for SRFI sample impls.) Any similar licence, or strictly less restrictive licence, would also be fine, under the proviso of compatibility with the GPL, AGPL, and friends.

Text within the SRFI documents may also be adopted into the report. The licensing situation of the Scheme reports is not ideal, but it’s not practical to fix it after all these years: <https://codeberg.org/scheme/r7rs/src/branch/main/LICENCE.txt>
I’m less concerned about this as there are various solutions (including simply rewriting the specification text for any adopted procedures/syntax/etc.) we can adopt.

Daphne