On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 14:07 +0100, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote:
> But, as it happens, I see the fact that everyone contributed to a
> document that says "We intend this report to belong to the entire
> Scheme
> community, and so we grant permission to copy it in whole or in part
> without fee", at no point complained that we had not realised anything
> we contributed would end up therein when it was submitted for public
> review, voted to accept it, etc, as counting as agreement to license
> the
> reports for unrestricted use and modification.

I'm also wondering about this term "unrestricted use" and previous
comments about public domain. The terms of the permission I think would
make it abundantly safe to take the document, or any smaller portion of
it, modify or change it, and then distribute it, with appropriate
copyright notifications concerning the source of the text. Indeed, this
is how it was done for R7RS.

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.

Thus, I'm quite curious why the OP is using the particular language of
"public domain" and "unrestricted" here in seeming opposition to what
already exists in the document. Some clarification would help. :-)

--
Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us
Please support my work: https://www.gittip.com/arcfide/

לֵ֤ב חֲכָמִים֙ בְּבֵ֣ית אֵ֔בֶל וְלֵ֥ב כְּסִילִ֖ים בְּבֵ֥ית שִׂמְחָֽה׃

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