Re: srfi-26

[Alex Shinn]

At 16 Jan 2004 13:53:55 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> Or if the author's employer claims that something was a work for
> hire.  That's the point of the employer-disclaimer, which is separate
> conceptutally from the copyright assignment.  So for PD code this
> still applies; it's arguably only really PD if the person who said so
> was the copyright owner, so a signed statement from the author that
> it's PD and from employer (anyone who might have a work-for-hire
> claim) disclaiming copyright interest should do, at least
> conceptually.

I guess that makes sense, though it's really inconvenient for something
like the Scheme community which shares code so freely.

But how about the 14-line, not-significant-for-copyright version?  There
are only so many ways to implement cut without artificially using a
round-about technique... if you won't take that code, I'll write a
program to automatically generate every possible cut and post it to the
list, forever banning Guile from using SRFI-26! :P

-- 
Alex