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.ti...@o2online.de> wrote: > On 29/06/2015 09:55, David Kastrup wrote: > > Marco Maggi <marco.maggi-i...@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 <e...@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 ...))) ) > >
