On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:51 AM, Ken Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 6) In this mail I have not yet dealt with how exactly the license is >> spelled out in the distribution (eg. LICENSE file) and in the >> individual files (the blurb we have in the =LICENSE entries of >> the modules). > > Lately I've been thinking that the 'dist' phase should automatically > write out a LICENSE or COPYING file with the full text of the license. > That way the author could declare the license once, in the Build.PL, > and not have to mention it in (or keep it in sync with) the POD in the > .pm files.
Automatically writing a LICENSE file (probably using Software::License) might be good legally but I am not sure, the plain multiplication of those texts is necessary. Not keeping =LICENSE and =COPYRIGHT entries in the POD in .pm files - if that's what you were suggesting - seems to me like a step backwards in the strength of the license. At least if I am not mistaken the Debian people would prefer if we had the copyright and license in *every* file. Anyway I am not a lawyer so I'd wait with this till Allison can get a real legal advice of what *should* be the form of the license and copyright. I hope she will be able to get this information soon and then we can move forward with the implementation of the various parts of it. regards Gabor
