On 07/23/2013 07:50 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> If this was just under some Creative Commons license or what have
> you, it would all be much simpler. They've worried about these issues
> for years and have clean, unambiguous licenses. (I'd personally pick
> an attribution + commercial derivative works allowed license, but
> that in particular isn't my call.)

My two cents, since we're on the subject: confusion over licensing is a
distraction from worthwhile work, and can be avoided by using one of the
handful of widely-understood licenses. My life gets easier when projects
use well-established licenses, e.g. Creative Commons, BSD, Apache, or
GPL, instead of distinct project-specific ones.

IANAL but my understanding is that copy-pasting a text creates a derived
work, but drafting a new text from scratch creates a non-derived work,
even if the new text describes ideas that the authors learned from an
old text. So perhaps the future R8RS editors could consider writing that
report from scratch so that it can bear a Creative Commons license
unequivocally.

Kevin Wortman

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports