Re: Perl module license clarification
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 07:16:23PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> 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.
What happens if Perl changes licenses? How can I tell what license a
given version of the module is released under? Perl is currently GPL+
Artistic. This can't be revoked for existing versions, of course, but
what happens if--having, perhaps, inhaled substances they shouldn't
have--they chose to begin distributing new versions of Perl under a
non-free license, and the module author goes along with it?
The module as already distributed is still available under the G+A--but
how do you know which versions of the module are G+A and which are
following the new license (perhaps in the interests of finding the last
free version in order to fork it)?
> 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?
Download a GPL program in 25 years; it's clear that you can at still use
the program under the terms of the GPL, version 2.
(I suspect the reason for this clause is the same as the one that
permits LGPL code to be shifted to GPL: to ensure that currently GPL'd
code will be upwards license-compatible with future versions of the
GPL.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: