On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:36:30PM +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?
No, it is not. It is the caml-light licence which is the tumbling block. It can still be going in non-free though, as the older ocaml used to have the exact same licence. Look at the (4 to 5 year old) archives of debian-legal for discussion on this. I think i finally managed to have it enter non-free by having a letter from inria telling that they don't considered the things needed for debian packaging as modifications, and globally gave Debian the perission to move it in non-free. Check older versions of ocaml, it will still be listed in the copyright file, but you will have to go to potato i think. Friendly, Sven Luther
