Scheme language standardization process
My two cents: The spirit of the spec is of course to have some freedom. However, the question of "commercial distributon" of the specs seems somehow unanswered to me. E.g. the Free Software Foundation et al. repeatedly specify that 'freedom to charge money' is a freedom which must be respected. The horror scenario would be that some organization will not recognize the spec as "free" if we don't specify this further. (Mind you that OpenBSD forked the Apache webserver because of ambiguity in the version 2 of Apache License.) IMHO having some specific licence to point to in the future could really help speed up discussions ;) Also I don't think that Musical Notation was trolling. IANAL, TINLA etc. Regards. On 07/22/2013 06:24 AM, Musical Notation wrote: > On Jul 21, 2013, at 22:30, Michael Sperber <sperber@x> wrote: > >> >> As the project editor, note that I've been following this discussion >> (as, I'm sure, have other editors), but have zero to add: As other >> people have reiterated, the permission notice in the document is pretty >> clear, AFAICS. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Mike >> >> _______________________________________________ >> r6rs-discuss mailing list >> r6rs-discuss@x >> http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss > Is it clear that I can do anything with the Scheme specifications, including: > 1. Distribute the specs commercially? > 2. Modify and distribute the modified versions? > > _______________________________________________ > Scheme-reports mailing list > Scheme-reports@x > http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports > -- If you are not paranoid these days, then you are insane. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports