On 2004-08-24 06:54:22 +0100 Seo Sanghyeon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~hugo/montylingua/doc/License.txt
[...]
Since it is certainly licensed under GNU GPL, is it okay to go into
Debian main? What could "This is covered under GPL, but only for
non-commercial use" mean at all?
I can't find that quote in the license file. Did you make it up?
However, their comments on http://web.media.mit.edu/~hugo/montylingua/
make it look like it could be what they mean. Would you contact them
to ask whether they really mean non-proprietary?
More troublesome is the following notice, which appears to grant no
permissions:
[QUOTE]
original datafiles are governed by the following MIT License:
Copyright 1993 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the
University of Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", AND M.I.T. MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS
OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. By way of example, but not
limitation, M.I.T. MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE USE
OF
THE LICENSED SOFTWARE OR DOCUMENTATION WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD
PARTY
PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.
[END QUOTE]
morph.lex's licence looks similar to a BSD+advertising to me. I wonder
about any combination effect with the GPL of the main software,
though.
xtag_morph_english.txt's licence looks like a simple non-copyleft.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
