I was wondering why no-one appeared to have read anything I said in this
'ere thread - and it seems my procmail rule to fix reply-to brokenness
was, errm, broken. Oops. So, in summary, here's my objections to the
current 'license' field in META.yml:
* poorly documented;
* limited range of options for licences;
* only one licence per distribution
The first is fixable so I'm not too bothered by it. The second and third
are fundamental design flaws which make it unfit for purpose. In one of
my messages that went missing, I proposed replacing it with this (and
please excuse my bad YAML!):
to mean "everything's covered by the licence in GPL2.txt"
licence: GPL2.txt
to mean "this file's GPL2 or Artistic, that file's under the Apache
licence, and everything else is in the public domain:
licences:
lib/Foo/Bar.pm: GPL2.txt or Artistic.txt
lib/Apache/Foo/Bar.pm: Apache.txt
*: public-domain
and then say that *either* 'licence' *or* 'licences' must be present, as
must the files they reference. The exact spelling of the word "or" in
the second example I leave to you :-)
--
David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist
When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life
-- Samuel Johnson
