Re: Fwd: Perl IO module license change
Bart Schuller <schuller@lunatech.com> writes:
> On Feb 6, Ben Gertzfield wrote
> > >>>>> "Craig" == Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
> > Craig> i suppose this means that a free version can be forked off
> > Craig> from 1.0901 if it becomes necessary.
> >
> > True, true. Do you know enough Perl to do this? :)
>
> I think p5p will do whatever is necessary to ship a complete and
> functioning perl, under the same old licenses as before. What I mean is:
> this would only become a Debian problem if the perl people decided to
> yank the module from the distribution (which they wouldn't have to do,
> legally) and tell the world to get it yourself.
> But the Perl people have higher standards.
As I pointed out to Ben privately, the IO licence is not really the
problem (there are other avenues for similar functionality etc). Of
greater concern would be Graham's releasing Net::* under the same
conditions. The libnet distribution is *not* part of the standard
build (due to some of the same issues which led to this change in IO -
but you knew that, didn't you Bart :)), but is core to some of the
debian functionality - dpkg-ftp springs to mind as the first example.
If push comes to shove, I'm willing to maintain a split libnet
distribution, but I'm really, really, *really* hoping that I'll
never have to remember saying that! :)
--
Stephen
---
"Normality is a statistical illusion." -- me
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: