l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi,
>
> Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> 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
