[MLton] MLton library project

[skaller]

On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 13:39 +0300, Ville Laurikari wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 08:34:12AM -0700, Stephen Weeks wrote:
> > * Contributors must agree to release under the MLton license (BSD).
> 
> There is one potential problem here.
> 
> The MLton license (http://mlton.org/License) is not just a license,
> but a copyright notice, license, and disclaimer all in one.

You must decide what constitutes a 'work' when delivering
a package. A package can contain more than one work.

Each work is independently copyrighted. 

Are you trying to deliver 'Mlton' as a single work?

> My thoughts are that `MLton-LICENSE' should be refactored to two
> pieces:
>   - the copyright (Cejtin, Fluet, Jagannathan, Weeks, NEC)

What happened to "SSH Communications Security"?

The list of copyright holders is generally a courtesy.

The licence simply provides the end user with evidence
that they're not stepping on someones toes: not limited
to the purported list of copyright holders.

It's all about fear. Best to relieve the end user of fear
by listing everyone and making a single licence which
you claim lives in the intersection of licences granted
for works from which MLton is derived.

Splitting the copyright list and licence into two documents
is a good idea IMHO, it makes maintenance easier.

-- 
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net