Re: Guile 1.8 / Viper System Interface

[Tristan Colgate <tcolgate@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6745 bytes --]

Could this be moved off to a more appropriate, non-guile, and non-FSF list
please.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:59 Michael Tiedtke <michele.titke@o2online.de> wrote:

> On 29/06/2015 09:55, David Kastrup wrote:
> > Marco Maggi <marco.maggi-ipsu@poste.it> writes:
> >
> >> Michael Tiedtke wrote:
> >>
> >>> Today the first successful clean room build of Viper's System
> >>> Interface (still heavily recognizable as Guile 1.8) compiled
> >>> successfully and ran for the first time.
> >> Excuse me, I step in as a foreigner.   If you do an unofficial fork of a
> >> GNU project: are you  not required to change the name  of the project to
> >> comply with the GPL?
> > How do you get that?
> >
> > GUILE 1.8.8 is released under LGPL 2.1.  The respective clause does not
> > call for a renaming of the project.  Here is the section for
> > modification:
>
> Legal can take a break. Justice is not a goddess but only an allegory
> and has to pause once again.
>
> Renaming is the first of many substantial changes and fair use
> considering the original distribution networks.
>
>
> >
> >    2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion
> > of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and
> > distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
> > above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
> >
> >      a) The modified work must itself be a software library.
> LGPL: "A "library" means a collection of software functions and/or data
> prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs
> (which use some of those functions and data) to form executables."
>
> Viper's System Interface (abbreviated VSI) will be available to the
> intended "audience" (i.e. public after publication) as a segmented text
> called source code. The LGPL will only apply to the collection of these
> segments in files which fulfill the cited criteria of a "library" and
> comply to the intentions of the original authors choosing that library.
> Additionally provided transformed mutations (aka binary or executable
> files) are not prohibited and if technically possible - can be "linked"
> against with the usual methods if supported by the system.
>   Many libraries are executable binaries themselves (include the GNU C
> Library) but not every binary is suitable for every method of linking.
> (Whatever the undefined term "link" should mean).
>
> Example:
> mt@nPong:/lib64$ ./libc.so.6
> GNU C Library (Ubuntu GLIBC 2.21-0ubuntu4) stable release version 2.21,
> by Roland McGrath et al.
> Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
> There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
> PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> Compiled by GNU CC version 4.9.2.
> Available extensions:
>      crypt add-on version 2.1 by Michael Glad and others
>      GNU Libidn by Simon Josefsson
>      Native POSIX Threads Library by Ulrich Drepper et al
>      BIND-8.2.3-T5B
> libc ABIs: UNIQUE IFUNC
> For bug reporting instructions, please see:
> <https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bugs>.
>
>
>
> >
> >      b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices
> >      stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
>
> That's an unfair restriction of fair use considering the "open"
> mechanics of the distribution original distribution networks as well as
> the lack of such notices by the maintainers and distributers themselves
> which are not the original authors. Copyright holder is an undefined
> term. With substantial changes to the file it even might result in a
> copyright notice like the following excerpt from goops.scm
>
> ;;;; This software is a derivative work of other copyrighted softwares; the
> ;;;; copyright notices of these softwares are placed in the file COPYRIGHTS
> ;;;;
> ;;;; This file is based upon stklos.stk from the STk distribution by
> ;;;; Erick Gallesio <eg@unice.fr>.
> ;;;;
>
>
> >
> >      c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no
> >      charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
>
> That is an impossible restriction of my freedom to trade even into the
> domain of my own texts. Trading wars ... don't even try it.
>
>
> >
> >      d) If a facility in the modified Library refers to a function or a
> >      table of data to be supplied by an application program that uses
> >      the facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility
> >      is invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that,
> >      in the event an application does not supply such function or
> >      table, the facility still operates, and performs whatever part of
> >      its purpose remains meaningful.
> >
> >      (For example, a function in a library to compute square roots has
> >      a purpose that is entirely well-defined independent of the
> >      application.  Therefore, Subsection 2d requires that any
> >      application-supplied function or table used by this function must
> >      be optional: if the application does not supply it, the square
> >      root function must still compute square roots.)
> >
> >
>
> There is a license but no licensing agreement because of the original
> publication process onto next to zero effort copying networks.
> The will of the original authors will be respected but not necessarily
> by letters as interpreted by any third party.
>
> Further publication of the derived work onto similar networks is granted
> by the original license. But there is no "anonymous" or other agreement
> on these networks especially if the software text is provided free of
> charge to the public. Thus third party licensing issue requests will be
> ignored, in the best case. Please consider reverting to the original
> distribution networks or others.
>
> We do not have be friends and can still get along in life. But if
> Justice' robbers and child pirates try they might end up where ...
>
> Viper (Guile/GOOPS) itself is tagged as with a "simplified BSD" on
> Launchpad which only should reflect my intentions as the original
> author. Initial releases of VSI will be recognizable as Guile and carry
> the original copyright notices as long as no substantial changes are
> made to the respective files.
>
> As an initial change the new directory hierarchy seems to reflect the
> directory layout of the original software package before it had become a
> library. Guile's current source tree can be considered broken or at
> least crippled with respected to common expectations about software
> package source code directory layout and feasability of modifications.
>
> (VSI (VSI-core VSI-srfi VSI-oop VSI-C) (trash (blurbs (LICENSE ...))) )
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8024 bytes --]