search

egallesio / STklos

STklos Scheme
http://stklos.net
GNU General Public License v2.0
70 stars 17 forks source link

Clarify copyright of some files #119

Open jpellegrini opened 4 years ago

jpellegrini commented 4 years ago

Hello @egallesio !

I was checking the licenses in order to put them in debian/copyright, and it isn't clear from some files what their licenses are.

Some of them seem to have an MIT-like license (like process.c for example). Is that correct, or should it be GPLv2 as most of STklos?

Anyway, these are the files:

src/base64.c: UNKNOWN
src/process.c: UNKNOWN
src/system.c: UNKNOWN

lib/bigloo-support.stk: UNKNOWN
lib/bigmatch.stk: UNKNOWN
lib/expand.pp: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
lib/expand.ss: UNKNOWN
lib/full-syntax.stk: UNKNOWN
lib/mbe.stk: *No copyright* UNKNOWN

lib/srfi-1.stk: UNKNOWN                              (SRFI license; what about the adaptation?)
lib/srfi-100.stk: UNKNOWN
lib/srfi-2.stk: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
lib/srfi-45.stk: UNKNOWN
lib/srfi-59.stk: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
lib/srfi-74.stk: Expat License
lib/srfi-89.stk: UNKNOWN
lib/srfi-9.stk: UNKNOWN

pkgman/lang-bigloo.l: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
pkgman/lang-chicken.l: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
pkgman/lang-mzscheme.l: *No copyright* UNKNOWN

etc/stk-dynload.c: UNKNOWN

What about the Makefiles? Can I state they all have the same license as the code?

egallesio commented 4 years ago

Hi, For most of the files I'm the only author, so it is simple (files with MIT licences are files that comes from STk, since it was the licence it used). For some file it will be a little bit more difficult, but all the files used in STklos have a license which is compatible with GPL2 (as far as I understand licences terms subtleties).

I clarify things in the files themselves before answering more precisely to this issue. Debian tools seems to be terrific for tracking all the corners of a package. I'm impressed. Thanks for signalling those points and for your help with the Debian packaging.

egallesio commented 4 years ago

Hi I have pushed some commits to clarify the copyrights. What we have: Deleted files

The following files are now GPL2 (I'm the author of this files)

For the following files I don't understand what is the problem. In fact these files are mostly derivative work oof other files (where the copyright is kept in the file). Does it suffice to add a copyright for the adaptation itself (as you do in lib/srfi-158.stk for instance)?

lib/expand.pp: No copyright UNKNOWN lib/expand.ss: UNKNOWN lib/full-syntax.stk: UNKNOWN lib/mbe.stk: No copyright UNKNOWN

lib/srfi-1.stk: UNKNOWN (SRFI license; what about the adaptation?) lib/srfi-100.stk: UNKNOWN lib/srfi-2.stk: No copyright UNKNOWN lib/srfi-59.stk: No copyright UNKNOWN lib/srfi-74.stk: Expat License lib/srfi-89.stk: UNKNOWN

jpellegrini commented 4 years ago

For the following files I don't understand what is the problem.

I think that in this case lintian got it wrong. Thanks for clarifying the copyright of the other files!

egallesio commented 4 years ago

The only file with no copyright at all is ib/expand.pp, but is is a kind of minified version of expand.ss . I'll add a one line pointer in it. Anyway, we will not need it anymore when we'll have new macros :smile:

jpellegrini commented 4 years ago

Hello! Sorry, I am having some problems that do not leave me much time to work on this, but I'm not dead! :)

Does it suffice to add a copyright for the adaptation itself (as you do in lib/srfi-158.stk for instance

@egallesio : yes, it does! But I think that for the Debain packaging it would also suffice to compile all the licensing information in a file. @lassik is that correct?

I have checked those licenses, and will document here what I have found. The (c) lines list the authors of the original implementation (not the adaptation):

egallesio commented 4 years ago

Hi @jpellegrini ,

Sorry, I am having some problems that do not leave me much time to work on this, but I'm not dead! :)

I hope that all these problems will be gone soon, and for myself, I'm still alive too :wink:

Concerning this issue, you really did is really a great (ingrate) job! Thanks a lot for it.

The only "problematic" source could be SRFI-2.So, I have pushed the tests on SRFI-2 and I can eventually recode it with the new syntax-case SRFI implementation. If the tests pass, we can switch on this implementation.

Thanks again for your help.

jpellegrini commented 4 years ago

I believe SRFI-2 is OK actually... The license was changed from the old SRF license to the new one. It just happened that the implementation was updated too, and the old one was lost. But those links show that at least one in time there was a page with the new SRFI license pointing to the old (define-macro) implementation. But I'll ask on the SRFI-2 list anyway.

jpellegrini commented 4 years ago

There is one thing that may be problematic for Debian packaging. The files in lib/Match.d/*.scm have this license:

 This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful.  
 Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative   
 works based upon this software are permitted, so long as the     
 following conditions are met:                                    
        o credit to the authors is acknowledged following         
          current academic behaviour                              
        o no fees or compensation are charged for use, copies,    
          or access to this software                              
        o this copyright notice is included intact.               
   This software is made available AS IS, and no warranty is made 
   about the software or its performance.

The restriction to non-commercial use qualifies it as non-free in Debian. I believe it still can be packaged, but would go into the "non-free" section. Is it possible to talk to the author and ask wether he still wants to keep the same license? Also, how much of STklos depend on it?

jpellegrini commented 4 years ago

Also, lib/Lalr.d mentions the author (Dominique Boucher) but no license...

egallesio commented 4 years ago

Also, how much of STklos depend on it?

STklos does not depend a lot of the Match library. It could be easily dropped if needed. As it seems that there is interest in a pattern matching definition in the last SRFIs, it could probably be replaced by a pattern matcher object of a final SRFI. The only (minor) problem is that the current implementation is documented as part of STklos.

Also, lib/Lalr.d mentions the author (Dominique Boucher) but no license.

A more recent version of Lalr is available at https://github.com/schemeway/lalr-scm and is GPL-3. I can ask Dominique, the status of the version shipped in STklos, but in any case embedding the new version in STklos will clarfy the licence problem.

jpellegrini commented 4 years ago

As it seems that there is interest in a pattern matching definition in the last SRFIs, it could probably be replaced by a pattern matcher object of a final SRFI.

SRFI 200 and SRFI 204, I see. It would be nice, indeed.

embedding the new version in STklos will clarfy the licence problem.

That sounds interesting!

Looks like this is a plan...

jpellegrini commented 4 years ago

Hi @egallesio ! I see you have already updated Lalr! I have asked about the copyright situation on the SRFI-2 mailing list, but got no answer. But it's such a simple SRFI, and a recent implementation is available and in the public domain, so maybe using it would be a good idea? (See PR #131 )