Oops, meant to reply all.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 8:55 AM Red Daly reddaly@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@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@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:23 PM Stelian Ionescu sionescu@cddr.org wrote:
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
public
domain, it should be enough to state that the licence for new code is
MIT and
over time the code base would become a mixture, just like SBCL. I guess
this
should be ok to appease lawyers.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. Would it help, Red?
-- Luís Oliveira http://kerno.org/~luis/