Re: [Scheme-reports] Unclear word in license grant

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry@x>]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:01:36 -0400 John Cowan
<cowan@x> wrote:
> Perry E. Metzger scripsit:
> 
> > My problem with the license is straightforward: if I write a new
> > document incorporating parts of the Scheme report, it is now a
> > derived work. What license may I put on this derived work? I have
> > no idea, because the license of the original work is completely
> > unclear.
> 
> As a matter of general law, if you create a derived work under
> license, you can put any license on your work that doesn't
> contradict the conditions of the original license on derivative
> works.  Since there obviously are no such conditions, you can use
> any license you want.
> 
> IANAL, TINLA, but this is not UPL either
> 

As just one ambiguity here that adds confusion, lets say your
language isn't exactly scheme. We have precedents for that (racket,
for example) and I've had a not-quite-scheme I've worked on over the
years. Does the license cover it? It only mentions "scheme" after all.

Here's another issue: whose copyright do I put on the copyright page
(other than my own)?

If this was just under some Creative Commons license or what have
you, it would all be much simpler. They've worried about these issues
for years and have clean, unambiguous licenses. (I'd personally pick
an attribution + commercial derivative works allowed license, but
that in particular isn't my call.)

Anyway, I didn't bring the topic up, but as long as other people
mentioned it...

Perry
-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry@x

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports