[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Perl module license clarification


I'm wondering why it is a bad idea that people just delegate their licensing
to another license, as is the case with the Perl modules.  Maybe that is
exactly what they want as in "we simply follow the Perl license, wherever
it takes us".  If at some point they don't agree with what Perl itself is
doing, they simply rerelease the next version under a different license
(I'm probably taking a few legal shortcuts here).

I mean, why should we force them to make a specific choice?  They have in
already made a choice: to follow Perl.  What's wrong with that?

I'm really curious as to what specifically and exactly is wrong with this
type of license delegation.

There is probably a similar issue with stating that software is licensed
under the GPL version 2 or any later version.  Isn't that also delegation
to another license? 


Don Armstrong (don@donarmstrong.com) wrote:
> 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

Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: ardo@debian.org
home page:  http://people.debian.org/~ardo
GnuPG fp:   3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73  7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9

Reply to: