GNU bug report logs - #67797
non-free license listed in module/ice-9/psyntax.scm

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 67797 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 67797 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-guile <bug-guile <at> gnu.org>
Subject: non-free license listed in module/ice-9/psyntax.scm
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:51:58 -0500

Hello,

In our syntax-case implementation, module/ice-9/psyntax.scm, the
following license text can be found:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
;;; Portable implementation of syntax-case
;;; Originally extracted from Chez Scheme Version 5.9f
;;; Authors: R. Kent Dybvig, Oscar Waddell, Bob Hieb, Carl Bruggeman

;;; Copyright (c) 1992-1997 Cadence Research Systems
;;; Permission to copy this software, in whole or in part, to use this
;;; software for any lawful purpose, and to redistribute this software
;;; is granted subject to the restriction that all copies made of this
;;; software must include this copyright notice in full.  This software
;;; is provided AS IS, with NO WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
;;; INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
;;; OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
;;; AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES OF ANY
;;; NATURE WHATSOEVER.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Due to restricting the use to "lawful purpose", it conflicts with the
(L)GPL, as it places restrictions on running the program.

Perhaps there are alternative, clean implementations out there under a
suitable license we could use?

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #8 received at 67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Thompson, David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#67797: non-free license listed in module/ice-9/psyntax.scm
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:01:31 -0500

Hey Maxim,

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:53 AM Maxim Cournoyer
<maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> In our syntax-case implementation, module/ice-9/psyntax.scm, the
> following license text can be found:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> ;;; Portable implementation of syntax-case
> ;;; Originally extracted from Chez Scheme Version 5.9f
> ;;; Authors: R. Kent Dybvig, Oscar Waddell, Bob Hieb, Carl Bruggeman
>
> ;;; Copyright (c) 1992-1997 Cadence Research Systems
> ;;; Permission to copy this software, in whole or in part, to use this
> ;;; software for any lawful purpose, and to redistribute this software
> ;;; is granted subject to the restriction that all copies made of this
> ;;; software must include this copyright notice in full.  This software
> ;;; is provided AS IS, with NO WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
> ;;; INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
> ;;; OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
> ;;; AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES OF ANY
> ;;; NATURE WHATSOEVER.
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> Due to restricting the use to "lawful purpose", it conflicts with the
> (L)GPL, as it places restrictions on running the program.

I don't think this is true. Surely if it was it never would have made
it into Guile, right? I mean... this is GNU we're talking about here
and psyntax has been around awhile! Having been immediately nerdsniped
by this email, I had to quickly do some research.

A 'git blame' dates the quoted license text back to 1998, commit
a63812a2fef2f81b8c4eca04c858e42b62e455f9, by Jim Blandy.

Commit message:

Talked to Stallman.  Actually, the syntax-case copyright is no problem.  Duh.
* Makefile.am (ice9_sources): Revert last change.
* syncase.scm, psyntax.pp, psyntax.ss: Added again.
* Makefile.in: Regeneretade.

This confirms my hunch that there is no issue with the license.

- Dave

Message #11 received at 67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: "Thompson, David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>
Cc: 67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#67797: non-free license listed in module/ice-9/psyntax.scm
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:50:01 -0500

Hi David,

"Thompson, David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu> writes:

> Hey Maxim,
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:53 AM Maxim Cournoyer
> <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> In our syntax-case implementation, module/ice-9/psyntax.scm, the
>> following license text can be found:
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> ;;; Portable implementation of syntax-case
>> ;;; Originally extracted from Chez Scheme Version 5.9f
>> ;;; Authors: R. Kent Dybvig, Oscar Waddell, Bob Hieb, Carl Bruggeman
>>
>> ;;; Copyright (c) 1992-1997 Cadence Research Systems
>> ;;; Permission to copy this software, in whole or in part, to use this
>> ;;; software for any lawful purpose, and to redistribute this software
>> ;;; is granted subject to the restriction that all copies made of this
>> ;;; software must include this copyright notice in full.  This software
>> ;;; is provided AS IS, with NO WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
>> ;;; INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
>> ;;; OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
>> ;;; AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES OF ANY
>> ;;; NATURE WHATSOEVER.
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>
>> Due to restricting the use to "lawful purpose", it conflicts with the
>> (L)GPL, as it places restrictions on running the program.
>
> I don't think this is true. Surely if it was it never would have made
> it into Guile, right? I mean... this is GNU we're talking about here
> and psyntax has been around awhile! Having been immediately nerdsniped
> by this email, I had to quickly do some research.
>
> A 'git blame' dates the quoted license text back to 1998, commit
> a63812a2fef2f81b8c4eca04c858e42b62e455f9, by Jim Blandy.
>
> Commit message:
>
> Talked to Stallman.  Actually, the syntax-case copyright is no problem.  Duh.
> * Makefile.am (ice9_sources): Revert last change.
> * syncase.scm, psyntax.pp, psyntax.ss: Added again.
> * Makefile.in: Regeneretade.
>
> This confirms my hunch that there is no issue with the license.

That's great, but... why is it not a problem?  :-)

When we find out, we should add an explanation next to the license text,
why it's deemed alright.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #14 received at 67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mike Gran <spk121 <at> yahoo.com>
To: "Thompson, David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>, 
 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: "67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#67797: non-free license listed in module/ice-9/psyntax.scm
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:39:37 +0000 (UTC)

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:51:11 PM PST, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> wrote: 
>> This confirms my hunch that there is no issue with the license.

>That's great, but... why is it not a problem?  :-)

>When we find out, we should add an explanation next to the license text,
>why it's deemed alright.

Maxim,
This is not meant to be plain English, but rather, it is American Legal Nonsense English.

If you changed the text to "may be used for any purpose: lawful or unlawful", then, in USA
contract/copyright law, the contract is unenforceable because it is illegal.  It is not possible
to be party to an unenforceable contract. If the receiver of the software can't be a party
to the contract because it is unenforceable, then effectively
the software can't be open sourced by that copyright statement.

-Michael

Message #17 received at 67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Mike Gran <spk121 <at> yahoo.com>
Cc: "67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>, "Thompson,
 David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>
Subject: Re: bug#67797: non-free license listed in module/ice-9/psyntax.scm
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:48:08 -0500

Hi Mike,

Mike Gran <spk121 <at> yahoo.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:51:11 PM PST, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> wrote: 
>>> This confirms my hunch that there is no issue with the license.
>
>>That's great, but... why is it not a problem?  :-)
>
>>When we find out, we should add an explanation next to the license text,
>>why it's deemed alright.
>
> Maxim,
> This is not meant to be plain English, but rather, it is American Legal Nonsense English.
>
> If you changed the text to "may be used for any purpose: lawful or unlawful", then, in USA
> contract/copyright law, the contract is unenforceable because it is illegal.  It is not possible
> to be party to an unenforceable contract. If the receiver of the software can't be a party
> to the contract because it is unenforceable, then effectively
> the software can't be open sourced by that copyright statement.

Do I understand correctly that any copyright license comes with an
implicit "lawful" condition so as to be considered valid, per the law of
USA at least?  And that making this explicit is thus not considered a
restriction on the use?

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #20 received at 67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mike Gran <spk121 <at> yahoo.com>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: "67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>, "Thompson,
 David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>
Subject: Re: bug#67797: non-free license listed in module/ice-9/psyntax.scm
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 05:53:46 +0000 (UTC)

> Hi Mike,

> Do I understand correctly that any copyright license comes with an
> implicit "lawful" condition so as to be considered valid, per the law of
> USA at least?  And that making this explicit is thus not considered a
> restriction on the use?

That is how I understand it. I am not a lawyer, but, I have had to read a fair number
of government contracts.

Regards,
Mike

Message #23 received at 67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Mike Gran <spk121 <at> yahoo.com>
Cc: "67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <67797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>, "Thompson,
 David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>
Subject: Re: bug#67797: non-free license listed in module/ice-9/psyntax.scm
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:10:07 -0500

Hi,

Mike Gran <spk121 <at> yahoo.com> writes:

>> Hi Mike,
>
>> Do I understand correctly that any copyright license comes with an
>> implicit "lawful" condition so as to be considered valid, per the law of
>> USA at least?  And that making this explicit is thus not considered a
>> restriction on the use?
>
> That is how I understand it. I am not a lawyer, but, I have had to read a fair number
> of government contracts.

Thank you.  To get confirmation from a more authoritative source, I've
asked the question to same to FSF Licensing & Compliance Team; I'll
report their response if any!

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #30 received at 67797-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Mike Gran <spk121 <at> yahoo.com>
Cc: "Thompson, David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>, 67797-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#67797: non-free license listed in module/ice-9/psyntax.scm
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 23:53:18 -0400

Hi,

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Mike Gran <spk121 <at> yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>> Hi Mike,
>>
>>> Do I understand correctly that any copyright license comes with an
>>> implicit "lawful" condition so as to be considered valid, per the law of
>>> USA at least?  And that making this explicit is thus not considered a
>>> restriction on the use?
>>
>> That is how I understand it. I am not a lawyer, but, I have had to read a fair number
>> of government contracts.
>
> Thank you.  To get confirmation from a more authoritative source, I've
> asked the question to same to FSF Licensing & Compliance Team; I'll
> report their response if any!

Haven't heard back, but this doesn't seem to be an issue, after all.
Closing.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.