[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Package Moscow ML and HOL

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

Reply to: