Re: Quasisyntax broken?

[Neil Jerram]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hi,
>
> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hm. I have no idea what this means for Guile. It seems we need either a
>> disclaimer or an assignment.
>
> My understanding is that it's OK if we have bits of code not copyright
> FSF, if there's a good reason to do so (and there is one, here).

I agree.

> After some reading, I see this (info "(maintain) Copying from Other
> Packages"):
>
>      When you are copying code for which we do not already have papers,
>   you need to get papers for it.  It may be difficult to get the papers
>   if the code was not written as a contribution to your package, but
>   that doesn't mean it is ok to do without them.  If you cannot get
>   papers for the code, you can only use it as an external library (*note
>   External Libraries::).
>
> But later on (info "(maintain) External Libraries") basically says that
> it's easy to incorporate free third-party code like this.
>
> At any rate we already have precedents for this (`psyntax' and `match')
> so I'm not worried.  Maybe we can ask Karl Berry and RMS just to make
> sure.

Good idea.

> (Note that the so-called "GNU" Bazaar doesn't have a single line
> copyright FSF.)

I think that just means that the FSF has no power to pursue any
infringing uses.  Which is fine, so long as

- in the case of Bazaar they are happy with someone else (Canonical?)
  having that power, or with no one having that power

- they don't forget and then waste resources on investigating an
  alleged infringement.

For Guile I think the second point is the important one.  If we
allowed Guile to become substantially non-FSF-owned, it might become
difficult to prove whether some future GPL-infringing use of Guile
relied on FSF-owned code, and hence whether the FSF had standing to
pursue the infringement.

Adding quasisyntax doesn't take us any nearer this hypothetical grey
area, IMO, so I don't think it's a cause for concern.

    Neil