On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:36:30 +0800, ZHAO Wei wrote: > On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:47, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > I remember vaguely that there used to be a licence problem with > > Moscow ML. What is its exact licence now? > > Under the mosml/copyright directory, there are three license files: > > 1. gpl2 - which is exactly a copy of GPL v2 > 2. copyright.att - which covers part of the library come from SML/NJ, > and as I read it, it's mostly BSDish > 3. copyright.cl - covers code come from CAML Light, which looks a little > bit strange, but to my unexperienced eyes, looks like a homebrew GPL > > Anyway, I think it's generally acceptable to put it in Debian main. > What's you opinion?
I'll quote parts of 3: > a- Extent of the rights granted by the INRIA to the user of the software: > INRIA freely grants the right to use, modify and integrate the > software in another software, provided that all derivative works are > distributed under the same conditions as the software. > > b- Reproduction of the software: > > INRIA grants any user of the software the right to reproduce it so as > to circulate it in accordance with the same purposes and conditions as > those defined at point a- above. Any copy of the software and/or relevant > documentation must comprise reference to the ownership of INRIA and > the present file. > > The user undertakes not to carry out any paying distribution of the > software. However, he is authorized to bill any person or body for the > cost of reproduction of said software. As regards any other type of > distribution, the user undertakes to apply to obtain the express > approval of INRIA. It looks like a) possible GPL incompatibility - so no distribution would be possible at all, b) even if not, no paying distribution means non-free IMHO. -- Michał Politowski -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Warning: this is a memetically modified message
pgpIcRtc2oNch.pgp
Description: PGP signature
