Re: legal archeology : ocaml bignum is non-free, is the licence enough to go into non-free ?
Scripsit Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> 1) the code is indeed non-free, and the copyright holder are the INRIA
> (which is willing to relicence it, no problem there),
Not related to ocaml, but who at INRIA have you been speaking with
about this? The Moscow ML runtime is also encumbered with an old
non-free INRIA licence, which a group of users have been trying to do
something about for years, without luck.
> the something (forgot the english name sorry) in the haystack. But in
Needle.
> BTW, what are the legal implications of distributing it via
> snapshot.debian.net, and the older debian releases ?
If the problem is purely a DFSG problem, not distributability,
then there should be no *legal* implications of keeping snapshots
of the old packages. The rest of the ocaml library is supposed to
be LGPL, so there wouldn't be any license incompatibilty to render the
combined package undistributable.
--
Henning Makholm "It was intended to compile from some approximation to
the M-notation, but the M-notation was never fully defined,
because representing LISP functions by LISP lists became the
dominant programming language when the interpreter later became available."
Reply to: