Re: Package Moscow ML and HOL
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:06:27PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:28:58AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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 even doubt that it can into non-free. As someone else on the
> debian-devel list pointed out, GPL and Inria licence are incompatible.
> As I understand it: If you redistribute Moscow ML then you also have
> to distribute the part that stems from CamlLight under GPL, and of
Well, it was solved by INRIA granting a special exception for ocaml, so
something similar could be achieved this time.
> course you don't have the right to do so. Don't count on convincing
> INRIA to re-release Caml Light under GPL (see the mail by Sven).
You never know what may happen :)))
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: