Erlang licenses

Gordon Guthrie <>
Tue Feb 21 11:20:36 CET 2006


Quoting Romain Lenglet <>:

> I would like to add that there is the same problem with Jungerl: 
> only 33 applications out of 70 have a distribution licence (i.e. 
> have at least one file that contains the word "licence" ;-)), 

Make that 34 of 70 - I have added a LICENSE file for my erlang_automated_build
script ;->

Gordon 'good citizen' Guthrie



> Hello,
> 
> > Erlang 10.b.9-2 have been rejected for inclusion in Debian
> > unstable because of an incomplete copyright file.
> >
> > Truthfully, lib/edoc and lib/syntax_tools are under an LGPL
> > license.  I've added LGPL to the regulatory copyright file.  I
> > suppose the rest is under the Erlang Public License.  Is it
> > safe to suppose this?
> 
> I would like to add that there is the same problem with Jungerl: 
> only 33 applications out of 70 have a distribution licence (i.e. 
> have at least one file that contains the word "licence" ;-)), 
> and there is no "default" global license for Jungerl as a whole.
> 
> -- 
> Romain LENGLET
> 
> 




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list