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

Re: "License: Perl" considered harmful [Was: "Python" license]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> One thing that came up when I was emailing Mark was that I didn't
> have (or couldn't find) a stock document I could point to about why
> "Licensed under the same terms as foo" is bad. That's a shame,
> because I know I've seen the issue come up here and on other lists
> before.



The basic jist is that the license is ill-specified; you're basically
setting yourself up for a lawyer bomb. I don't think we should remove
things from the archive based on this license, but anything new should
be clarifying the terms of the license with their upstream.

[As far as your text goes, it seems to contain a lot of hyperbole;
merely pointing out the lack of specificity in the licencing and the
issues that it causes, and more importantly, what packagers/upstream
should do to fix the problem is good enough.]

Don Armstrong

There is no mechanical problem so difficult that it cannot be solved
by brute strength and ignorance.
 -- William's Law

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: