SRFI copyright license
Hi, (This is the next episode of the "let's free scsh" saga.) I wish to get your opinions on the case of the reference implementations in the SRFI's. An SRFI, Scheme Request For Implementation, is the process by which the Scheme community agrees on standard libraries and features for various scheme implementations. Every SRFI contains a reference implementation, and bears this copyright notice: Copyright (C) /author/ (/year/). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Scheme Request For Implementation process or editors, except as needed for the purpose of developing SRFIs in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the SRFI process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the authors or their successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE AUTHOR AND THE SRFI EDITORS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. For an example, see http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-19/srfi-19.html http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-19/srfi-19.scm The question is: Is a scheme implementation that includes the reference implementation DFSG-free (providing the rest of the implementation is, obviously)? The SRFI FAQ, at http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-faq.html, says: Does the SRFI copyright permit using a SRFI sample implementation (or a derivative of one) in my Scheme implementation? Yes. Does the SRFI copyright permit using parts of a SRFI in the documentation of my Scheme implementation? Yes. Doesn't the SRFI copyright notice contradict itself? You're probably thinking of the sentence "However, this document itself may not be modified in any way [...] except as needed for the purpose of developing SRFIs [...]" which might seem to contradict the answers to the previous questions. However, this sentence is only to prevent passing off a modified copy of the document as the document itself. So SRFI x is an inviolable entity (and once finalized, very close to cast in amber). But you can excerpt from it at will, with attribution. (We have actually consulted with several lawyers on this; it is what we intended, and it is what it means.) In the case of scsh, which includes some of these reference implementations, upstream's opinion is that what the license means is "the copyright needs to remain intact", not "the code cannot change". You can see the thread at: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.scsh/1483 In particular the end of these mails: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.scsh/1495 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.scsh/1615 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.scsh/1618 Thank you for your time, -- Lionel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SRFI copyright license
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > Every SRFI contains a reference implementation, and bears this > copyright notice: > > Copyright (C) /author/ (/year/). All Rights Reserved. > > This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to > others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain > it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, > published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction > of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this > paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. > However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such > as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Scheme > Request For Implementation process or editors, except as needed for > the purpose of developing SRFIs in which case the procedures for > copyrights defined in the SRFI process must be followed, or as > required to translate it into languages other than English. > > The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be > revoked by the authors or their successors or assigns. > > This document and the information contained herein is provided on > an "AS IS" basis and THE AUTHOR AND THE SRFI EDITORS DISCLAIM ALL > WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY > WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE > ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS > FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > Is a scheme implementation that includes the reference implementation > DFSG-free (providing the rest of the implementation is, obviously)? No, unfortunatly, because irregardless of the FAQ, the license is contradictory, and seemlingly violates DFSG #3. [Unless there is a provision which I am missing to license the actual implementation of a reference implementation separately... Could you provide reference to the "procedures for copyrights defined in the SRFI process"?] > Doesn't the SRFI copyright notice contradict itself? > You're probably thinking of the sentence "However, this document > itself may not be modified in any way [...] except as needed for > the purpose of developing SRFIs [...]" which might seem to > contradict the answers to the previous questions. However, this > sentence is only to prevent passing off a modified copy of the > document as the document itself. So SRFI x is an inviolable > entity (and once finalized, very close to cast in amber). But you > can excerpt from it at will, with attribution. (We have actually > consulted with several lawyers on this; it is what we intended, > and it is what it means.) May I suggest that this particular text of the license actually be changed to say exactly what is meant, instead of relying on a lawyer's interpretation of its meaning? EG: Modifications must indicate the nature of any change and the date of such change. Additionally, modifications as made must explicitely indicate that they are not a SRFI Reference Implementation in a location routinely used for such notices, or in the very document itself. While there is no doubt in my mind that you could make a case for the statement in the FAQ, its also quite possible (and probably more likely) to claim the opposite, and still have an interesting and expensive legal slugfest. Moreover, there's nothing in this document that gives you the right to modify outside of creating "derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation." [You could argue, I suppose, that any dirivative work explains the work its derived from, but if that's the tack to take, why not just say it?] > In the case of scsh, which includes some of these reference > implementations, upstream's opinion is that what the license means is > "the copyright needs to remain intact", not "the code cannot change". I'm personally not convinced of that, but it's possible I can be swayed. Don Armstrong -- "People selling drug paraphernalia ... are as much a part of drug trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide." -- John Brown, DEA Chief http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SRFI copyright license
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: >> Every SRFI contains a reference implementation, and bears this >> copyright notice: >> >> Copyright (C) /author/ (/year/). All Rights Reserved. >> >> This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to >> others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain >> it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, >> published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction >> of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this >> paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. >> However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such >> as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Scheme >> Request For Implementation process or editors, except as needed for >> the purpose of developing SRFIs in which case the procedures for >> copyrights defined in the SRFI process must be followed, or as >> required to translate it into languages other than English. >> >> The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be >> revoked by the authors or their successors or assigns. >> >> This document and the information contained herein is provided on >> an "AS IS" basis and THE AUTHOR AND THE SRFI EDITORS DISCLAIM ALL >> WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY >> WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE >> ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS >> FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. >> >> Is a scheme implementation that includes the reference implementation >> DFSG-free (providing the rest of the implementation is, obviously)? > > No, unfortunatly, because irregardless of the FAQ, the license is > contradictory, and seemlingly violates DFSG #3. [Unless there is a > provision which I am missing to license the actual implementation of a > reference implementation separately... Could you provide reference to > the "procedures for copyrights defined in the SRFI process"?] I strongly disagree: the license is just saying that you can't publish a derivative work of SRFI X as SRFI X, and are otherwise free to derive works. Looks like an ideal license for standards documents, really, which does everything this community has been asking for. > Moreover, there's nothing in this document that gives you the right to > modify outside of creating "derivative works that comment on or > otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation." [You could > argue, I suppose, that any dirivative work explains the work its > derived from, but if that's the tack to take, why not just say it?] I would think "assist in its implementation" would cover most software, but... yeah, it would be nicer if it were made more broad. >> In the case of scsh, which includes some of these reference >> implementations, upstream's opinion is that what the license means is >> "the copyright needs to remain intact", not "the code cannot change". > > I'm personally not convinced of that, but it's possible I can be > swayed. > > > Don Armstrong
Re: SRFI copyright license
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > I strongly disagree: the license is just saying that you can't > publish a derivative work of SRFI X as SRFI X, and are otherwise free > to derive works. Could you step through your logic of that, without relying on the FAQ? As near as I can parse it, I'm seeing: this document itself may not be modified in any way, except as needed for the purpose of developing SRFIs. Now, if you want to claim that "this document itself" means merely the copy in front of you, that's possible, but then this statement is a no-op. It may be a flaw in my reasoning, but I can't reconcile this statement with the explanation given in the FAQ. > Looks like an ideal license for standards documents, really, which > does everything this community has been asking for. Not too bad, assuming you clear up the ambiguities we've hit on already. > I would think "assist in its implementation" would cover most > software, but... yeah, it would be nicer if it were made more broad. Yeah. Restrictions on modifications that don't cause an appreciable increase in freedom are generally not a good thing. Don Armstrong -- "...Yet terrible as UNIX addiction is, there are worse fates. If UNIX is the heroin of operating systems, then VMS is barbiturate addiction, the Mac is MDMA, and MS-DOS is sniffing glue. (Windows is filling your sinuses with lucite and letting it set.) You owe the Oracle a twelve-step program." --The Usenet Oracle http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SRFI copyright license
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 01:40:33PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: >> Every SRFI contains a reference implementation, and bears this >> copyright notice: >> Is a scheme implementation that includes the reference >> implementation DFSG-free (providing the rest of the implementation >> is, obviously)? > No, unfortunatly, because irregardless of the FAQ, the license is > contradictory, and seemlingly violates DFSG #3. > [Unless there is a provision which I am missing to license the > actual implementation of a reference implementation > separately... Not that I know of. > Could you provide reference to the "procedures for copyrights > defined in the SRFI process"?] The SRFI process is at: http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-process.html >> Doesn't the SRFI copyright notice contradict itself? >> You're probably thinking of the sentence "However, this document >> itself may not be modified in any way [...] except as needed for >> the purpose of developing SRFIs [...]" which might seem to >> contradict the answers to the previous questions. However, this >> sentence is only to prevent passing off a modified copy of the >> document as the document itself. So SRFI x is an inviolable >> entity (and once finalized, very close to cast in amber). But you >> can excerpt from it at will, with attribution. (We have actually >> consulted with several lawyers on this; it is what we intended, >> and it is what it means.) > May I suggest that this particular text of the license actually be > changed to say exactly what is meant, instead of relying on a > lawyer's interpretation of its meaning? This would be too simple... More seriously, I'm running it through debian-legal first to confirm that I'm not the only one thinking in this direction, and we'll see from there. I don't have very high hopes of getting the SRFI editors (and all past authors) to change the license, but well, we can try. -- Lionel
Re: SRFI copyright license
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > I wish to get your opinions on the case of the reference > implementations in the SRFI's. An SRFI, Scheme Request For > Implementation, is the process by which the Scheme community agrees on > standard libraries and features for various scheme > implementations. Every SRFI contains a reference implementation, and > bears this copyright notice: It's clearly non-free as a software license. You aren't allowed to distribute code changes, which could be actually a very desirable property of the license in the eyes of its authors, but still is non-free according to the DFSG. As a documentation license, it seems to be modeled after the ISOC copyright statement on RFCs. I don't think this qualifies as a free documentation license in the strictest sense (and IIRC, this was the majority opinion in previous discussions on debian-legal, but I could be mistaken).
