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
