cvs commit: fptools/libraries/base LICENSE

[Simon Marlow]

Ross Paterson writes:

> Right: the documentation includes a summary of the copyright=20
> and licencing
> information that is given precisely elsewhere, closer to the=20
> source code.
>=20
> In the Haskell libraries, there is no clear indication of the=20
> licencing
> of each individual module.  (There's a pointer to a file that contains
> 4 BSD-like licences now, maybe 20 next year.)  No problem for people
> who use the library as a whole, but it will be for people who want to
> extract some modules and modify them for their own purposes.  At the
> least we need to name the licences and mention the name in the License
> field of the module header.  It would be a little bit of work now,
> but it would be simple for new modules to follow.

I think on reflection that this approach will lead to confusion.  The
original idea was to stick to a single BSD license for libraries/base,
and I think that's what we should do. =20

What do we need to do to make this happen?  I must admit this is one of
the areas of licensing that I'm most confused about.  Should the single
BSD license list *all* the copyright holders, or is it ok to list just
one (say the University of Glasgow)?

Cheers,
	Simon