|
[Scheme-reports] Agreement to license
musicdenotation@gmail.com
(30 Jun 2014 11:55 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Agreement to license
Aaron W. Hsu
(30 Jun 2014 12:44 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Agreement to license
musicdenotation@gmail.com
(30 Jun 2014 12:56 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Agreement to license
Alaric Snell-Pym
(30 Jun 2014 13:11 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Agreement to license
Aaron W. Hsu
(30 Jun 2014 13:34 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Agreement to license Bear (02 Jul 2014 00:20 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Agreement to license
John Cowan
(02 Jul 2014 19:22 UTC)
|
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Agreement to license
Jonathan Rees
(30 Jun 2014 15:29 UTC)
|
On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 09:30 -0400, Aaron W. Hsu wrote: > What seems more suspicious, though I don't think legally problematic > from the above wide permission, is to copy the document, and then claim > copyright over it, and somehow incorporate it as a part of a significant > commercial endeavor, without citing or referencing the original work and > trying to pass the copy as your own work. If someone presented a modified document which still claimed to be the standard for Scheme while actually saying different things about the semantics of the language described, that would clearly be a violation of the license under which the original is offered, because the original is intended for the use of the Scheme community and such a document would actively undermine the Scheme community. Therefore, there IS in fact a license, so it is definitely not "Public Domain." We are being asked to clarify the license so that no knowledge of common sense is required to understand what the license entails. It's a request that probably makes sense in Lawyerese, and its intent is probably to get a copy of the license actually translated into Lawyerese. Unfortunately I know of no reliable way of translating common sense into that language. I have in the past advised someone (I'm forgetting whom right now) that it was entirely okay to use R4RS (which was current at the time) as the framework or "first draft" of a reference manual for his particular scheme implementation - modifying the text as necessary to describe the implemented language in the instance, as opposed to the standard for the language family -- and, of course, clearly indicating exactly what instance of the language was being described as opposed to making the claim to be the standard itself. I recall advising him that it would be a "Richard" at best to do so without acknowledging the original document, but I think I agreed with him at the time that there was no legal requirement to do so. I believe that's probably still true of the current RNRS too, for what it's worth. Ray Dillinger _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports