On Tue, 04 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> On a Debian system a copy of the Perl license can be found in the file
> '/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic'.
Or, as in my packages:
License: GPL, Artistic, available at /usr/share/common-licenses/{GPL,Artistic}
> I would like to know what exactly the issue here is, and which course
> of action to take to eliviate this issue.
While Troup is correct (in my opinion) that the licensing terms that
many perl modules place themselves under is vauge, it's well
understood in the community that "under the same terms as perl itself"
(currently) means a GPL+Artistic dual license.
However, it would probably be a good idea to get upstream to clarify
this in their licensing that they mean GPL+Artistic dual licensing, as
opposed to being tied to whatever license perl is released under at
that moment in time.
Should this keep your package from entering the archives? I'd expect
not, as it hasn't held up packages before.[1] But then again, it is
something that we should work with the perl module authors to fix if
we decide that it is a problem.
Don Armstrong
1: I mean, libuser-perl which I packaged only a few months ago
entered... and it has the same problem with the license statement.
--
UF: What's your favourite coffee blend?
PD: Dark Crude with heavy water. You are understandink? "If geiger
counter does not click, the coffee, she is just not thick."
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgp4TinxTmSKN.pgp
Description: PGP signature