Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> writes: > That's great. In case that could be useful for future ports, I had > devised a hacky script to automate the task to migrate the upstream html > documentation to texinfo, it's available here: > <https://lists.gnu.org/r/guile-devel/2023-12/msg00069.html>.
Oh, that might have been handy. > that is, having annotated SPDX licensing information in every file of > the project, which would make it very clear what licensed gets pulled > into Guile (and other users) when copying source files. See the > <https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-process.html> page, which documents > it. Unless there are some SPDX drawbacks I don't know about, that sounds nice (I've been using it myself of late). > I've gone ahead and submitted a PR to this repo to add the SPDX licenses > annotations, which should make your job slightly easier here, by not > having to hunt and place the license text yourself in the source files: > <https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-197/pull/5>. Thanks much, for that, and the review. I suppose the main question is still whether we want srfi-197 in guile. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
