Despite little variations in wording, I think that the best thing for Chicken purposes is to say that the whole egg is MIT.
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 12:59 PM Sören Tempel <[email protected]> wrote: > Mario Domenech Goulart <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sören, > > Hello Mario, > > > My only remark would be regarding the license, which AFAIK should be > > MIT. John Cowan would be able to clarify that. > > I went through the license comments in these files and bitwise-60.scm > and bitwise-core.scm have a license which is identified in the CHICKEN > wiki as „Free Use” (I have actually never seen this license before): > > http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggs-licensing#free-use > > The other *.scm files with the exception of (chicken-test.scm and > srfi-151.scm) have a public domain license header. For this reason, I > used "Public Domain/Free Use" as the license string, as recommended by > the eggs-licensing wiki page. > > The files chicken-test.scm and srfi-151.scm have no license header. > However, according to Arthur Gleckler they are in fact licensed under > the MIT license [1]. I would have added a corresponding license header > (as suggested by Arthur) but I am unsure who the copyright holders for > these files are. > > > Some files in the repository are not really important for the egg (e.g., > > .html files, Scheme files which are not included by the CHICKEN > > implementation). They would be part of the egg, but not really used. > > Not a big deal, IMO, but since your repo is a fork to make the code > > CHICKEN-specific, maybe it would be worth removing the unnecessary > > files. > > That's also something I noticed. Should I just remove these files from > the repository or would it be preferable to create a meta-file which > ensures that only the scheme files are included in the egg [2]? > > > Fun fact: I had packaged SRF-151 for CHICKEN 5 a couple of hours before > > I saw your pull request in GitHub (talk about coincidence). I just > > didn't make the egg available because I hadn't ported the documentation > > to the wiki format. I hope providing documentation in wiki format in > > your plans. If so, and if you want a wiki account, please send me the > > username you intend to use and the hash of your password (it can be > > generated with "openssl passwd -apr1"). Having the documentation in the > > wiki is nice, as symbols exported by the egg are indexed by > > api.call-cc.org. > > I didn't know that there was a specific documentation format for the > wiki. Where can I find more information about it? However, I actually > just need this egg for a small scheme project of mine. Since my spare > time is rather limited these days I cannot promise that I get around to > adding documentation in the wiki format. So far, I relied on the > documentation provided by the SRFI. I can also include the SRFI code > directly in the repository of my other project if that's a blocker for > you. I just thought this SRFI might be useful for other CHICKEN users as > well. > > Thanks for your feedback so far! > > Greetings, > Sören > > [1]: > https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-151/pull/4#issuecomment-669245870 > [2]: https://wiki.call-cc.org/releasing-your-egg#meta-file-distribution > >
