The following cannot and should not be construed as legal advice. I am not a lawyer. On Tue, 04 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > Maybe that is exactly what they want as in "we simply follow the Perl > license, wherever it takes us". That's the question that is being asked. Is that really what they mean? > I'm really curious as to what specifically and exactly is wrong with > this type of license delegation. The main problem I see is that the terms that the program is released under is (possibly) a moving target. What rights are guaranteed at some time in the future isn't known. [When using such a license you're basically asking for the court system to sort the legality out.[1]] > There is probably a similar issue with stating that software is > licensed under the GPL version 2 or any later version. Your missing a key phrase here: "any later version AT YOUR OPTION." > Isn't that also delegation to another license? In this case, the GPL version 2 is known to apply, as could any other version of the GPL. While it implies a sense of trust in the authors of the GPL, the terms under which the program is released are at least GPL version 2. This is not the case in the perl module licensing issue. Don Armstrong 1: I'm tempted to try to find case law regarding this issue... but clarity is often better than allowing vague areas where there could be a ruling. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpUJWhYL6Zdb.pgp
Description: PGP signature