From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id CNZmFdYIfGHHZQEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:44:38 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id 0OkbEdYIfGHfIgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 14:44:38 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 006ABBE02 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:44:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:42314 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mgT7U-00085e-Up for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:44:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48016) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mgT7B-0007nd-DK for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:44:17 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:38210) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mgT7B-0007qb-0M; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:44:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:To: From; bh=JJHvY7WX5jzmjrXPpM+OqzJ6F2lUkWFbteAq0Qze1aA=; b=P1fxKefHEeX1m3sP2Jye jgHKed/PkHL+FAu0T3lQDgrxV7Lkc0Zw6MaDdTRjcfvhAF2WN6mgyCK5hR0eVqKSAyqlJxdibuUoG oBQnguJ4TE51RarGWKCM6WcC+EOhG0CXqXuCuI2lqpHB76KnC/1Vim/1Q8CAu1kOw/E3RyyxurDCK 8/hr2gVpqUtEG17TcFdbM7FZKtVEM2m17xNrNhzPJwxzaG0vaseW+DNLW2hzUZzuUYqbvhVXcJuva yD7FRBJx7qJQWYw8GdiVB9ejPz0Ghd9btEPSrWHbmgvDN7xvYR6KO28tMZUSWHZ18htwuwd471r0u gErJ/X5jrZYCvg==; Received: from [2001:660:6102:320:e120:2c8f:8909:cdfe] (port=51484 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mgT7A-0008Ex-KR; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:44:16 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Philip McGrath Subject: Re: License issue with SRFI 5 References: X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 8 Brumaire an 230 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:44:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Philip McGrath's message of "Fri, 22 Oct 2021 22:13:19 -0400") Message-ID: <87o877zy9t.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Guix Devel Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1635518678; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=JJHvY7WX5jzmjrXPpM+OqzJ6F2lUkWFbteAq0Qze1aA=; b=aJBd8tftyMVQYGFSY0V2lA7R31uCgzEUxLDKyY5zUpPHMDU0zJKiLgiY+WBKj7upMPrXq3 FfuGxyYPtX5SHlgruiAaE6bJtM7mcOTH+ZoXQZs4thareJ2LaSgIBs7HXsf//lqOFB5tQt svq6elOe4uynuLOCCmMdIkNUAbnPyVvwHF2+kuHR6a6zeMoSmKFXSR30Ld+7oiV1tOHgZn FtYQkIEEahDCICWPv6J94NOn4EXG3V9Xa80o0JFXdpKdN4XMjKOLbj+SWkXy50EWRigH0G M+eh7z/lCqUWe5wFP7lqiTIJ4EN/lQrsUn8tPxhArqgRVXlNrihmBatCRwCYrQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1635518678; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=ONWH03lO9j9vdxm6bpfp+Gd489/3xEWq7pwwfCtc3NO3BeDNFQH84C/zU8zzAOfdNGCF0n reiXdMXHmZZWfq+tMNwjNOTZK0rjVtGvxLocL9pX0VmsrcQ6qhMWU8zSFPhnZA2o87LEnu nc3jIDhlowg7vcN8L/hkAss8Vv4O2nf1DMhBJhzL7D+op49WcojHXGwT2CiSCr6M/jyY4k ovko4UOEofY4uhCTuMkh+KGW8zj4irM1GVUrB8lB82Pt9FPhuzIPASXrLkuZuh5HxOi4lI 2nX0beEyvQAR77jgMWySkWgm8hPyyPd5wbsnXG259fpTIuHO+c8i3os/NQ537Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=P1fxKefH; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.12 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=P1fxKefH; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 006ABBE02 X-Spam-Score: -3.12 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: QSNOsmVTn4X2 Hi, Philip McGrath skribis: > Since 2005, SRFIs have used the MIT/Expat license, and all but two > older SRFIs were relicensed: however, the SRFI editors were not able > to contact the author of SRFI 5, Andy Gaynor, so it remains under the=20 > original SRFI license.[1] That license, modeled on that of IETF RFCs, > was intended to be quite permissive while also trying to ensure=20 > derivative works would not be confused with the final, official SRFI > itself. (The many versions of some SRFIs that nonetheless have come up=20 > while hunting down related issues has given me some sympathy for that > goal.) Unfortunately, the restrictions on modifications went to far, > at least in the judgement of Debian and Fedora. > > Here is the license text, as it appears at > and=20 > : Oh. Do people actually use SRFI-5? (Honest question, I didn=E2=80=99t know abou= t it and don=E2=80=99t feel much appeal.) Is there code inside Racket that uses it? [...] > Racketeers have high expectations of their documentation, like being > able to right-click on an identifier in DrRacket (or the equivalent in=20 > Emacs with racket-mode) and jump to the locally-installed > documentation for the relevant binding according to lexical scope and > the module system---even for a binding like `let`, which is defined by > 27 different Racket modules, including `srfi/5`. My tentative plan is > to write free replacement documentation for SRFI 5, eliminate > everything from "srfi-doc-nonfree" but the official SRFI 5 document > itself, and program the free SRFI 5 documentation (in Racket's > Scribble language) to link to the SRFI 5 document at racket-lang.org > if there isn't a local copy installed. > > This all raises a few questions about Guix policy: > > 1. Can Guix distribute the official SRFI 5 standard document under > the license listed above? I don=E2=80=99t think so; it looks like a non-free software license to me. > 2. If not, can Guix distribute free documentation that links > to an online copy of the official SRFI 5 standard document? I think it would be easy to do a =E2=80=9Cclean room=E2=80=9D section docum= enting SRFI-5 no? I mean, once you know the spec, documenting it is trivial, to the point that it=E2=80=99s even hardly copyrightable (there=E2=80=99s little i= nvention). > 3. Would it be permissible for the free documentation to > include instructions for installing the official SRFI 5 standard > document locally, e.g. `raco pkg install srfi-doc-nonfree`? > (Or perhaps `raco pkg install srfi-5-std-doc`, to avoid the > implication of arbitrary non-free materials?) Per the FSDG, no. [...] > However, there are a few less-than-fully-developed sentences in the > FSDG that cast some doubt, e.g., "Programs in the system should not > suggest installing nonfree plugins, documentation, and so on."[8] I do > not think this should be read to prohibit free documentation for free > software for referring to restrictively licensed standards implemented [...] You=E2=80=99re right that the FSDG can be interpreted in different ways. Hopefully its spirit is clearer than its wording. For this case, I=E2=80=99d take the pragmatic approach (if Debian and Fedora haven=E2=80=99t done it way) to either remove SRFI-5 from Racket if it=E2= =80=99s possible, or to do, like you suggest, a clean-room implementation of the code and spec. Rewriting is likely going to take less time and be more fun than trying to disentangle all the issues you mention. Again, it=E2=80=99s probably going to look very similar to the original code (unless you use =E2=80=98syntax-parse=E2=80=99 for the fun of it :-)), but = that=E2=80=99s because there=E2=80=99s little code and there aren=E2=80=99t a thousand way= s to do it. Thanks for raising this issue; HTH! Ludo=E2=80=99.