From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Quasisyntax broken? Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:51:03 +0100 Message-ID: <87ab2pd9k8.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> References: <87ocs2y6lx.fsf@delenn.lan> <87skgn81ux.fsf@delenn.lan> <87ljmcsb6r.fsf@delenn.lan> <878wibgkvn.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1248735086 8760 80.91.229.12 (27 Jul 2009 22:51:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:51:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 28 00:51:18 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MVZ2K-0005Is-IC for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:51:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33603 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MVZ2K-00023F-3O for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:51:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MVZ2H-000230-0e for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:51:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MVZ2C-00022d-Lx for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:51:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51246 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MVZ2C-00022a-Ea for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:51:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]:37696) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MVZ29-0003hx-6N; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:51:05 -0400 Original-Received: from arudy (host86-152-99-133.range86-152.btcentralplus.com [86.152.99.133]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2A31F66F5; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:51:04 +0100 (BST) Original-Received: from arudy.ossau.uklinux.net (arudy [127.0.0.1]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3F938021; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:51:03 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <878wibgkvn.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22's?= message of "Mon\, 27 Jul 2009 00\:06\:04 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:8975 Archived-At: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > Hi, > > Andy Wingo writes: > >> Hm. I have no idea what this means for Guile. It seems we need either a >> disclaimer or an assignment. > > My understanding is that it's OK if we have bits of code not copyright > FSF, if there's a good reason to do so (and there is one, here). I agree. > After some reading, I see this (info "(maintain) Copying from Other > Packages"): > > When you are copying code for which we do not already have papers, > you need to get papers for it. It may be difficult to get the papers > if the code was not written as a contribution to your package, but > that doesn't mean it is ok to do without them. If you cannot get > papers for the code, you can only use it as an external library (*note > External Libraries::). > > But later on (info "(maintain) External Libraries") basically says that > it's easy to incorporate free third-party code like this. > > At any rate we already have precedents for this (`psyntax' and `match') > so I'm not worried. Maybe we can ask Karl Berry and RMS just to make > sure. Good idea. > (Note that the so-called "GNU" Bazaar doesn't have a single line > copyright FSF.) I think that just means that the FSF has no power to pursue any infringing uses. Which is fine, so long as - in the case of Bazaar they are happy with someone else (Canonical?) having that power, or with no one having that power - they don't forget and then waste resources on investigating an alleged infringement. For Guile I think the second point is the important one. If we allowed Guile to become substantially non-FSF-owned, it might become difficult to prove whether some future GPL-infringing use of Guile relied on FSF-owned code, and hence whether the FSF had standing to pursue the infringement. Adding quasisyntax doesn't take us any nearer this hypothetical grey area, IMO, so I don't think it's a cause for concern. Neil