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? Please send license text that is unfamiliar to the Project to the debian-legal list for vetting. In your list above that would be both items 2) and 3). "BSDish" is not a guarantee of DFSG-freeness, and furthermore, a license can be DFSG-free but not GPL-compatible, and if a work contains material under the GPL and under a non-GPL-compatible license, the result may not be distributable by the Debian Project at all (or so much may have to be stripped out that there's no point shipping the package). -- G. Branden Robinson | There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he branden@debian.org | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman
Attachment:
pgpsfn7zSj435.pgp
Description: PGP signature