On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 09:52:04PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is a very long thread about the Artistic License; if it is
> a Free Software license according to the DFSG or not. Whatever the
> outcome of that discussion I think that it is clear that the Artictic
> License is indeed a very vague license. Which seems to be why the
> discussion is so long. (Even though I do indeed believe that the license
> was made in the same spirit as the DFSG when Larry Wall wrote it.)
>
> I looked on my system and could not find any packages that were
> actually licensed under only the Artistic License. All packages that
> are licensed under the Artistic License are (just as perl) licensed
> under both the Artistic and the GPL. This seems to suggest that if
> there are packages (or proposals for packages) under only the Artistic
> License that it would be a good idea/consistent to either ask the
> author to relicense under the Clarified Artistic License or dual
> license with the GPL.
In view of actual data (gasp), and the fact that John and my
discussion seems exceedingly unlikely to convince either one of us, I
suggest that we decide to do the following things:
1) Drop the argument
2) Not try to change the Social Contract
3) Reccomend strongly to all authors that attempt to use *only* the AL
that they use the clarified version instead, or that they use the
technique that Perl uses.
How does that sound?
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
Attachment:
pgpx5EnVjtx1j.pgp
Description: PGP signature