From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Import your CK macro into Guile? Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:41:54 -0500 Message-ID: <87pq333hgd.fsf@tines.lan> References: <87625e7hfe.fsf@tines.lan> <87ip9d1gn9.fsf@gnu.org> <87r4o19sqn.fsf@tines.lan> <87r4njewsp.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1353721342 32665 80.91.229.3 (24 Nov 2012 01:42:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 01:42:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 24 02:42:34 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Tc4lO-0003u3-8p for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 02:42:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51531 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tc4lD-0001hC-Iu for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:42:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57127) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tc4lA-0001gr-VY for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:42:21 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tc4l9-00013R-QJ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:42:20 -0500 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:53158) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tc4l9-000125-MA; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:42:19 -0500 Original-Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=tines.lan) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tc4kr-0003gW-Uc; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:42:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87r4njewsp.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Sat, 24 Nov 2012 00:15:02 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 96.39.62.75 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:15242 Archived-At: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> Apologies if I mishandled this, but the problem here is that the code >> had no explicit license or copying permission notice. If it had been >> explicitly published as free software, I certainly would not have >> bothered him about it. > > There are still two errors in the file: > > 1. There=E2=80=99s a line =E2=80=9Ccopyright FSF=E2=80=9D; > > 2. The file says to be GPLv3+. > > Could you fix that by removing the line and stating its actual license? > > My guess is that Oleg Kiselyov did not bother adding a license > boilerplate that would be longer than the actual code, but that=E2=80=99s= still > a bit embarrassing. Is there an official statement somewhere about its > status? As I wrote above, Oleg's code had no explicit license or copying permission notice. I took 15 lines of his code, which is not "legally significant" according to my reading of the GNU maintainers guile. I then reworked the code to use an auxillary macro instead of the string-literal hack. For that reason I added the FSF copyright. I then sent Oleg a copy of the file that I proposed for inclusion (with the FSF copyright and the GPLv3+ notice) and asked him if he'd be willing to contribute it to Guile, calling his attention to the attached file. He agreed in a message sent to the guile-devel mailing list. I would have handled this situation more carefully if the code was legally significant. What did I do wrong? Regards, Mark