On 12/11/2010 20:22, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
"The authors and publisher intend this Report to belong to the entire Haskell community, and grant permission to copy and distribute it for any purpose, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety, including this Notice. Modified versions of this Report may also be copied and distributed for any purpose, provided that the modified version is clearly presented as such, and that it does not claim to be a definition of the language Haskell 98[2010]."
Ah, so you read the second sentence as an alternative, so you can comply by picking either the first or the second. Does that mean if we pick the second that we do not need to include the notice? :-)
It seems to me that if you distribute a modified version of the Report, but still include the notice, then you are explicitly disobeying its terms.
As we well know, Engilsh is a very poor language for specifying things precisely. The intent of the license as it applies to us is pretty clear though - we have to say where we got the code from, and say that it does not constitute a definition of Haskell 98/2010. We have to include the notice in as much as it applies to downstream distributors, because they're also distributing modified versions of the report. Cheers, Simon