add license to package info.rkt file (special case)

[LiberalArtist]

Related to racket/racket#3760.

Note: The Tiny CLOS license appears to be a variant of the "Xerox License" (Xerox). The only difference is in the following sentence, where the Tiny CLOS variant omits the struck-through words and adds the bracketed words compared to the variant cataloged by SPDX: "Use and copying of this software[, reproduction,] and preparation of derivative works based upon this software are permitted."

(Wearing a different hat, I would find this believable either as a lectio brevior potior change within Xerox or as a scribal substitution of a summary for the original.)

The sentence about "applicable United States export control laws" might raise eyebrows, but I see that Guile's GOOPS is also derived from Tiny CLOS, so I guess this must be a kosher formula for expressing that sentiment.

[samth]

I think this is good but I'm interested in @elibarzilay's thoughts.

[elibarzilay]

I most definitely did not edit the license. In fact, I'm half surprised that I kept it at all...

If I google for "Copyright (c) 1992 Xerox Corporation. All Rights Reserved" "Use, reproduction, and preparation of derivative works are permitted", I see a few occurrences in other tiny-clos places which reaffirms that this is how it appeared in the sources I used.

I'm guessing that @GregorKiczales will know more...

[GregorKiczales]

It was a long time ago. But as I recall: - When we did the PCL (Portable CommonLoops) license it was a big deal to get Xerox to making something open source like that. We had to spend a lot of time talking with people getting them to understand how that was important to a standards effort etc. - By the time Jim started Closette, which became Tiny CLOS, people were much more calm about such things and I think we just simplified the text without much discussion of it. Bear in mind of course that we are talking about 25+ years ago.

…

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:52 AM Eli Barzilay ***@***.***> wrote: I most definitely did not edit the license. In fact, I'm half surprised that I kept it at all... If I google for "Copyright (c) 1992 Xerox Corporation. All Rights Reserved" "Use, reproduction, and preparation of derivative works are permitted", I see a few occurrences in other tiny-clos places which reaffirms that this is how it appeared in the sources I used. I'm guessing that @GregorKiczales <https://github.com/GregorKiczales> will know more... — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJFZ4D3KZFAW3ETELC4JJJ3UIBOO5ANCNFSM5FZG7PEQ> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.

[LiberalArtist]

@elibarzilay, I hadn't meant to suggest that you'd altered the license; I've also seen other Tiny CLOS bundles and derivatives with the text as it appears in

swindle/tiny-clos.rkt

Lines 14 to 31 in 122e38e

	;;; Original copyright:
	;;; ***************************************************************************
	;;; Copyright (c) 1992 Xerox Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
	;;;
	;;; Use, reproduction, and preparation of derivative works are permitted. Any
	;;; copy of this software or of any derivative work must include the above
	;;; copyright notice of Xerox Corporation, this paragraph and the one after it.
	;;; Any distribution of this software or derivative works must comply with all
	;;; applicable United States export control laws.
	;;; This software is made available AS IS, and XEROX CORPORATION DISCLAIMS ALL
	;;; WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE IMPLIED
	;;; WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND
	;;; NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION CONTAINED HEREIN, ANY LIABILITY FOR
	;;; DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE SOFTWARE OR ITS USE IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED,
	;;; WHETHER ARISING IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR STRICT
	;;; LIABILITY, EVEN IF XEROX CORPORATION IS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
	;;; DAMAGES.
	;;; ***************************************************************************

Especially given what @GregorKiczales said, it seems like The Right Thing would be to tell the SPDX people about this variant of the Xerox license. Ideally, they might be able to add some markup to https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/fafa7810dd7fea7612d588470fe1a3259c81986d/src/Xerox.xml#L12-L13 to get this text to officially match Xerox, though I guess they could also decide to make it Xerox-TinyClos-variant or something.

Personally, the differences are so minimal that I'd be fine with marking Swindle

(define license
  '(Xerox AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)))

without waiting, but I'll defer to others on that.

[samth]

I'm good with that. @LiberalArtist do you want to mention this to the SPDX people?

[LiberalArtist]

Sure. I'm looking into whether just to open a GitHub issue or submit in some more standardized way (since it's not a "new license request", really).

[LiberalArtist]

I've opened spdx/license-list-XML#1346 on the SPDX list: hopefully adjusting the markup will be as easy a change as it appears.

[LiberalArtist]

@Aeva reported on Discord that that the reference manual in readme.txt (as opposed to README.md) still references the LGPL. I'll take a look at fixing that—maybe in a separate pull request, if the SPDX people are still deciding about spdx/license-list-XML#1346 (comment).

[samth]

@LiberalArtist can you update this PR to fix readme.txt? Then I think we're ready to merge.

[LiberalArtist]

@samth Done, and I've also added a comment mentioning spdx/license-list-XML#1346: since it doesn't seem like a decision there is imminent, I'm in favor of merging this now.