cvs commit: fptools/libraries/base LICENSE

[Simon Marlow]

> On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 06:54:40AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > simonmar    2002/06/20 06:54:40 PDT
> >=20
> >   Modified files:
> >     libraries/base       LICENSE=20
> >   Log:
> >   Add license from Andy Gill's HTML library
>=20
> Except for capitalization, this is exactly the same licence that
> Parsec is distributed under, i.e. BSD minus the=20
> non-endorsement clause.
> Can we rationalize?  And doesn't copyright belong in the source file,
> rather than the LICENSE file?  The way things are going, we could have
> quite a lot of very similar licences in libraries/base/LICENSE.

Perhaps, but IANAL and I figured that concatenating the licenses was
most likely to be correct.  The idea is that libraries/base should be
BSD-licensed, but I'm not sure what to do about the copyrights.  The BSD
license requires the copyrights to be reproduced in a binary
distribution, so shouldn't all the copyrights be collected in one place?

Cheers,
	Simon