[Setting followup to -legal]
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Russ Allbery wrote:
> but if someone can recommend alternate wording that would preserve
> the same spirit but avoid the potential problems that you've seen, or
> alternately something that I can add that explains those potential
> problems for module authors, I'd be very happy to update this text.
There are two methods you can use to clean up the clause:
Copyright (C) YYYY-XXXX Foolish Barnone. All rights reserved. This
program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the same terms as Perl itself, version ZZ.YY or any later
version at your option.
Or:
Copyright Year, Your Name Here. All rights reserved.
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of either:
a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later
version, or
b) the "Artistic License" which comes with Perl.
This latter is the current copyright statement of Perl itself. You may
wish to specify GPL v2 instead. Note as well that I haven't received
much criticism either way over the proposed copyright statements, so
please scrutinize them before using them.
There was a discussion on perlmonks a few months back about it when it
came up in -legal.[1]
> Is the concern the lack of specificity about the version of Perl and
> therefore the exact license referred to?
That, and the fact that the license could potentially be a moving
target. (For a more detailed explanation, you have to read the -legal
thread.)
Don Armstrong
1: http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=232693
--
We were at a chinese resturant.
He was yelling at the waitress because there was a typo in his fortune
cookie.
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch31.php
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpp6hqe9EbsJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature