License for Slime
reddaly at gmail.com
Tue Jun 12 18:49:12 UTC 2018
Oops, meant to reply all.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 8:55 AM Red Daly <reddaly at gmail.com> wrote:
> I got approval to contribute if the new code is in a separate file
> released under MIT (and other OSI-approved licenses). Thanks for the
> suggestion and willingness to do this.
> Aside from edits to Makefiles, I am not able to modify files that have
> been released into the public domain. It also sounds problematic or
> impossible to apply a license to code previously released into the public
> domain, so my original post to this thread was naive - apologies.
> On Mon, May 14, 2018, 8:25 PM Red Daly <reddaly at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the replies. The idea of using a license for new code might
>> indeed help. I now have some questions out to the open source team here,
>> and I will reply when they get back to me.
>> For some background reading on public domain software from OSI, I found
>> this page informative: https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain
>> On May 14, 2018 8:23 AM, "Luís Oliveira" <luismbo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:23 PM Stelian Ionescu <sionescu at cddr.org>
>> > Maybe you don't necessarily need to change the licence of existing code.
>> > Just like with the legacy code from Spice Lisp and CMUCL which was
>> > domain, it should be enough to state that the licence for new code is
>> > over time the code base would become a mixture, just like SBCL. I guess
>> > should be ok to appease lawyers.
>> I wouldn't have a problem with that. Would it help, Red?
>> Luís Oliveira
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the slime-devel