[erlang-questions] License Clarification about Dialyzer in OTP needed
Fri Feb 27 09:27:27 CET 2009
This is an oversight
The text in this readme file should be changed to the EPL text or
maybe the whole file will be removed.
Will be addressed in the next release.
/Kenneth, Erlang/OTP Ericsson
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:21 AM, <sand@REDACTED> wrote:
> Back when Dialyzer was being shipped as a separate application, it had
> the following in its README file:
>> | NOTE: The Dialyzer is distributed with its complete source and its |
>> | USE IS FREE FOR OPEN-SOURCE PROJECTS OR NON-COMMERCIAL USES. |
>> | |
>> | For use in commercial projects, AN EXPLICIT PERMISSION FROM |
>> | ITS AUTHORS AND COPYRIGHT OWNERS IS REQUIRED. |
> and its source files had no particular license. Now that Dialyzer is
> shipping with OTP, each of the source files has the Erlang Public
> License notice at the top, but the README still has the "explicit
> permission" requirement.
> Is the "explicit permission" requirement still in effect? If so, how
> does it relate to the EPL license notice on each source file? (The
> sources don't mention any exception to the EPL.) If the requirement
> isn't in effect any more, can it be removed from the README, to remove
> the ambiguity?
> Derek Upham
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions