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

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Russ Allbery wrote:

That's additional information that I didn't have.  Are all hundred of
those modules covered under the Artistic 2.0 license?

Yes, with the exception of 3 explicitly mentioned in the README.

I was under the impression that the Perl 6 modules in the archive were
being packaged independently like the Perl 5 modules, since I think I've
seen several of them already.  I didn't realize that you had a monolithic
package that you were going to break up.

What you've likely seen is the Perl 5 modules that emulate parts of Perl 6 syntax. Those are all named "Perl6::something".

Hm.  I think you're going out on a considerable legal limb here, but
presumably you've talked to a lawyer and have gotten a firm legal opinion
before taking this step.  I'm not a lawyer, so I won't question legal
judgement, and the wording of the Artistic License is odd enough that this
may be possible.  However, in general, relicensing requires assignment or
consent, so if you *haven't* gotten a specific legal opinion on exactly
this question, I strongly recommend doing so before relicensing just to
avoid unfortunate problems.

Indeed, we got legal counsel on the question before we even started to revise the license. The legal steps are squared away. There is still a community process for the update, because that's the way Perl development works.


Reply to: