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-domainOn 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:I wouldn't have a problem with that. Would it help, Red?
> 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.