At Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:03:42 -0700, Matthew Butterick wrote:
> Did SFC do so in this case? No idea. Before the switch, Karen Sandler
> from SFC circulated [2] a template agreement [3] but AFAIK the actual
> agreement that Racket's core team signed, and the details thereof,
> has never been shared with the community. (Can it? Should it? Not my
> call. Or did I miss it?)

It was the same, with the "Self-Perpetuating Committee" option for 6:

> Furthermore, the original SFC/Racket press release mentioned a "newly
> formed Project Leadership Committee" [4] — there's never been any
> mention of who's on this committee, or whether their responsibilities
> involve licensing.

It's Matthias, Robby, Sam, Jay, and me --- the same as Racket
leadership before joining the Conservancy.

Leadership's job includes licensing in the sense that if we want to
change the Racket license, then leadership has to move it along, either
by doing the work directly or finding people to help. The Conservancy
can provide legal support and advice, and it obviously has a say in
whether a license choice is compatible with the Conservancy's goals and
membership (which, in the case of the relicensing that we're trying to
accomplish, it is).

> Lingering elsewhere: the relicensing project that commenced more than
> 2.5 years ago [5] — not clear whether under the SFC this effort is
> alive, dead, or what. Of course, Galaxy's Edge took 3 yrs to build,
> so maybe I'm being unreasonably impatient.

Clearly, we could use some help.

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 view this discussion on the web visit

Reply via email to