Re: randlib licence

[David Bateman]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 11-Jul-2007, David Bateman wrote:
> 
> | So yes there is a case that randlib is not GPL compatible. The current
> | ACM license is dated June 1998, and all of these references are prior to
> | that. I checked the ACM website and unfortunately they only have the
> | articles themselves and not  the legal material for the journals
> | online.. So someone who had a paper copy of the ACM transactions from
> | 1991 would have to check the licensing terms at that date... If there is
> | nothing basic copyright applies and its not GPL compatible either..
> | 
> | Ok, I think I've convinced myself that randlib has to go... Damn..
> 
> Although it would be nice to keep it for backward compatibility, I
> also think it is OK to remove it.  It may cause trouble for some
> people that the sequences are not exactly the same as before, but I
> don't expect that it will be a serious problem for very many people.
> 
> jwe
> 


Can we at least ignore the issue until after 2.9.13..

Regards
David