Ross Paterson writes:
> Right: the documentation includes a summary of the copyright
> and licencing
> information that is given precisely elsewhere, closer to the
> source code.
>
> In the Haskell libraries, there is no clear indication of the
> licencing
> of each individual module. (There's a pointer to a file that contains
> 4 BSD-like licences now, maybe 20 next year.) No problem for people
> who use the library as a whole, but it will be for people who want to
> extract some modules and modify them for their own purposes. At the
> least we need to name the licences and mention the name in the License
> field of the module header. It would be a little bit of work now,
> but it would be simple for new modules to follow.
I think on reflection that this approach will lead to confusion. The
original idea was to stick to a single BSD license for libraries/base,
and I think that's what we should do.
What do we need to do to make this happen? I must admit this is one of
the areas of licensing that I'm most confused about. Should the single
BSD license list *all* the copyright holders, or is it ok to list just
one (say the University of Glasgow)?
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Cvs-libraries mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-libraries
