[m-rev.] for review [www]: Try to clarify licensing.

Paul Bone paul at bone.id.au
Thu Apr 18 16:39:11 AEST 2013

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 02:43:09PM +1000, Peter Wang wrote:

I suggest using three paragraphs.  I've added breaks.

> diff --git a/include/download.inc b/include/download.inc
> index 759dcc3..d7c886f 100644
> --- a/include/download.inc
> +++ b/include/download.inc
> @@ -13,6 +9,24 @@ project's hosting,
>  we hope to improve this in the future.
>  </p>
> +<H3> License </H3>
> +
> +<p>
> +The Mercury implementation is free software, but it is Copyright
> +(C) 1993-2013 The University of Melbourne.

new paragraph here

Then change the next bit to "The compiler and tools are..."

> It is distributed
> +under the terms of the
> +<a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html">GNU General Public License (GPL)</a>.
> +See the file <a href="download/COPYING">COPYING</a> for copying permission.
> +</p>

This paragraph break is correct.

> +<p>
> +The Mercury libraries and runtime (the files in the library, trace,
> +browser, ssdb, mdbcomp and runtime subdirectories) are distributed
> +under the terms of the
> +<a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.0.html">GNU Library General Public License (LGPL)</a>.
> +See the file <a href="download/COPYING.LIB">COPYING.LIB</a> for copying permissions for those files.
> +</p>
> +

So you get the right idea straight away.  Rather than the wrong idea
followed by a paragraph which 'corrects' that idea.

The rest is good.


Paul Bone

More information about the reviews mailing list