Re: caml-light licence question.

2003-05-15 Thread Sven Luther
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:15:35AM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: > >>> Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or > >>>

Re: caml-light licence question.

2003-05-15 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: >> On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: >>> Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or >>> integrating it in another software is allowed only if the >>> distributio

Re: caml-light licence question.

2003-05-15 Thread Sven Luther
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: > An additional question, is this the actual license? Or is it an > english translation of the actual license? [Looks like it was written > by a non-english common law attorney.] > > On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: > > My under

Re: caml-light licence question.

2003-05-15 Thread Sven Luther
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 04:35:20PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence. > > My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since > > it allow distribution of modified

Re: caml-light licence question.

2003-05-14 Thread Don Armstrong
An additional question, is this the actual license? Or is it an english translation of the actual license? [Looks like it was written by a non-english common law attorney.] On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: > My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, > since it allow

Re: caml-light licence question.

2003-05-14 Thread Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence. A brief addendum to my previous reply: the non-free package qmail-src might be a good model to follow as qmail has a similar restriction in its licence. Edmund

Re: caml-light licence question.

2003-05-14 Thread Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence. > My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since > it allow distribution of modified works only as pristine source + > patches, not binaries, and i will be going to

caml-light licence question.

2003-05-14 Thread Sven Luther
Hello, I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence. My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since it allow distribution of modified works only as pristine source + patches, not binaries, and i will be going to discuss this with the upstream aut