David, Thanks for the history. Like the historical digressions in the aforementioned 'ML for the Working Programmer', I find such explanations more interesting than the actual programming!
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 09:55, David Matthews wrote:
Any change to the licence would have to be agreed by CUTS and given the time I spent trying to get them to sign the current licence I feel there would have to be a convincing case to make changes. If people really are being discouraged from contributing to Poly/ML or using it then I might be able to make a case.
Well, I count two examples covered in this thread already. :o)
That surely can't be feasible.
Most universities require their students and staff to agree to abide by software licensing rules. That would be quite sufficient.
OK. Point taken. As long as one is not bothered about making their own version/build widely available, I guess that's adequate.
That particular message was posted to the Debian legal mailing list. Previous messages in the thread had been copied to me and I replied and copied my reply to the list. I don't read the list so naturally I didn't see that message.
Yep. Apologies - I see that now.
On Tuesday, Mar 16, 2004, at 16:19 Europe/London, Martin Ellis wrote:
Of course, this is all just two cents of off-topic rant
And, OK. Touch' e. I was wrong about Isabelle depending on PolyML. SML/NJ didn't work for me, so in my head Isabelle did indeed depend on PolyML. But I maintain my point that -in general- many tools we use 'suffer' in some way from their own licenses or those of related software, perhaps it was a wee bit off-topic here, I did warn you!
Regards, Martin