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?
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
Reply to: