"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > 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)?
IANAL, but I am pretty sure that you have to list all copyright holders. The BSD license doesn't put many restrictions in place, but the two that it insists on is that the copyright holder must be named and that the disclaimer must remain intact. So, I would think that you need a disclaimer that lists all copyright holders, too. The alternative may be to, after all, have individual LICENSE files in the individual package subdirectories and just have libraries/base/LICENSE the Glasgow license plus a prominent remark at the top, which says that (a) individual subdirectories have their own license files and (b) that all code that hasn't got an explicit license is under the Glasgow license. (Technically, this is still incorrect, as all kinds of people not affiliated with Glasgow University have hacked the code and the copyright to that code belongs to these individuals or their affiliations and not to Glasgow University.) AFAIK, the only way to simplify all this is to do as the FSF and insist on written copyright assignments for all contributions. (And even this only works cleanly under US law and maybe UK law, but not under continental European law if I understand the situation correctly.) Cheers, Manuel _______________________________________________ Cvs-libraries mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-libraries
