Re: guile-user Digest, Vol 204, Issue 2

[John Cowan]

Distinguo.  I have not *pressured* the author to dual license; that is, I
have not exercised force or undue influence (of which I have none).  I have
*asked* them to do so and presented arguments in favor of it.   A fortiori,
I am not asking them to bow to me, but to act if they agree with my
reasoning.  Please retract the word "pressure".

In addition, I did not know (though I certainly should have checked) that
the guile-json copyright has remained with the author rather than being
assigned to the FSF.  I will communicate directly with the author.

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:19 PM Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> wrote:

> I wrote:
> > Zelphir could propose a SRFI for the API only, with no reference
> > implementation.  The existing implementation could remain copylefted.
>
> John Cowan <address@hidden> replied:
> > Unfortunately not.  A SRFI must have a sample implementation to get
> > finalized (otherwise it is feared there would be too many WIBNI SRFIs).
> > The implementation doesn't have to be portable, but it has to have the
> > correct license.
>
> That's unfortunate.  I stand corrected.
>
> Nonetheless, I find it regrettable that you've chosen to pressure a
> library author on a GNU project forum to abandon copyleft licensing.
> Personally, I don't think that SRFIs are important enough to justify
> bowing to such pressure.  Guile-JSON's association with Guile and Guix
> is enough for it to gain wide adoption, whether it is a SRFI or not.
> That said, it is of course Aleix's decision how to license his library.
>
>       Thanks,
>         Mark
>