> On 27 Aug 19, at 9:27 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote: > > 4. The interpretation of the LGPL as it relates to Racket that appears > on the download page is our (the Racket leadership) interepretation, > not the SFCs. None of us are lawyers, but that remains our > interpretation.
So Racket's licensing is, or is not, supervised by an actual lawyer? In the past, I've gathered that Racket management has consulted with a lawyer on certain issues. But your comment suggests that maybe this isn't so. Or at least not for licensing. > 3. The license of Racket has not changed as a result of joining the SFC. > 6. The relicensing is something we hope to complete, but as the SFC is > now the fiscal sponsor of the Racket project they are working to make > sure it's done to their standards, which may require more time. These statements seem somewhat at odds — how should they be reconciled? Do you mean that if & when the relicensing is completed, Racket's licensing will be thereafter be supervised by the SFC and its lawyers (because the relicensing needs to be "done to their standards")? As I understand it, though SFC's term-of-art legal designation is "fiscal sponsor", their relationship with member projects encompasses more than just fiscal matters. [1] [1] https://sfconservancy.org/about/ <https://sfconservancy.org/about/> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/B646E784-09E6-4A5E-9744-22B37DC566C2%40mbtype.com.
