> 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 

Reply via email to