Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 06:39:13PM -0600, Ardo van Steve Rangelrooij wrote: Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:25:26PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: I've been contacted by Ann Barcomb (see her message below; below that is her second message to me) about the Perl module license issue. I've put her on the Cc and would appreciate it if you could keep her on the list of recepients. So, what information do we feed back to the Perl community in order for them to fix their licenses. Well, there's arguments on both sides, but doesn't yet seem to be a consensus on whether this is a real problem or not. Clarifying it probably can't hurt, though. It's also my impression there's no consensus, but what is the deciding enity in Debian on this matter: ftp-masters, the technical committee, ...? Steve The ftp-masters have veto power over packages entering the Steve archive, be it for technical or legal reasons. You might Steve be able to appeal to the technical committee, but I doubt Steve they would consider the matter without some kind of Steve consensus on debian-legal that the ftp-masters are wrong. You can always introduce a GR. I'm not even convinced it would be wrong in this case as there seems to be a complete lack of consensus. If you have an option that avoids introducing a GR yand is acceptable to you, please pick that option. We do not want to get into the habbit of dealing with small details through GRs except when other options fail us. But the GR mechanism is explicitly there as a way to appeal the decisions of other parts of the project or to make decisions when no clear authority exists.
Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You can always introduce a GR. This is fucking ridiculous; I've already explained twice what Ardo needs to do to get his packages past us and that's simply to comply with policy. I've already explained twice that the problems with the equivocal (at best) 'same terms as perl' ``license'' are not keeping his packages out of the archive. Why the hell is anyone talking about GRs and/or veto powers? *BLAH* -- James
Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:25:26PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: I've been contacted by Ann Barcomb (see her message below; below that is her second message to me) about the Perl module license issue. I've put her on the Cc and would appreciate it if you could keep her on the list of recepients. So, what information do we feed back to the Perl community in order for them to fix their licenses. Well, there's arguments on both sides, but doesn't yet seem to be a consensus on whether this is a real problem or not. Clarifying it probably can't hurt, though. This module is available under the same terms and conditions as Perl itself, versions 5.3 through 6.8. Perhaps (taking the GPL as a hint): This module is available under the same terms and conditions as Perl itself, version 5.3 or (at your option) any later version. to prevent any possible license conflicts down the road, and the unnecessary implication that 6.8 should be updated with every release of Perl. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:25:26PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: I've been contacted by Ann Barcomb (see her message below; below that is her second message to me) about the Perl module license issue. I've put her on the Cc and would appreciate it if you could keep her on the list of recepients. So, what information do we feed back to the Perl community in order for them to fix their licenses. Well, there's arguments on both sides, but doesn't yet seem to be a consensus on whether this is a real problem or not. Clarifying it probably can't hurt, though. It's also my impression there's no consensus, but what is the deciding enity in Debian on this matter: ftp-masters, the technical committee, ...? This module is available under the same terms and conditions as Perl itself, versions 5.3 through 6.8. Perhaps (taking the GPL as a hint): This module is available under the same terms and conditions as Perl itself, version 5.3 or (at your option) any later version. to prevent any possible license conflicts down the road, and the unnecessary implication that 6.8 should be updated with every release of Perl. But this still does not mention explicitly the licenses (GPL+Artistic) and that seems to be the key issue. Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo GnuPG fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. On Sun, 09 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Perhaps (taking the GPL as a hint): This module is available under the same terms and conditions as Perl itself, version 5.3 or (at your option) any later version. I brought the issue up on perlmonks in a mediation, and Jenda suggested a similar clarification.[1] I personally would recommend making it exactly like the GPL's clause: This module is available under the same terms and conditions as Perl version 5.3 itself, or the same terms and conditions as any later version of Perl itself at your option. Primarily because I think it's clearer, and parentheticals are strange in legal documents. But I suspect that it would be interpreted as more verbose version of the clause that Glenn wrote above. But this still does not mention explicitly the licenses (GPL+Artistic) and that seems to be the key issue. That was one of the problems that was brought up, but it stemed from the fact that the copyright/license statement doesn't dictate which version of perl's terms the module is licensed under. Don Armstrong 1: http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=232825 -- Guns Don't Kill People. *I* Kill People. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpVK7qObmwT0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 06:39:13PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:25:26PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: I've been contacted by Ann Barcomb (see her message below; below that is her second message to me) about the Perl module license issue. I've put her on the Cc and would appreciate it if you could keep her on the list of recepients. So, what information do we feed back to the Perl community in order for them to fix their licenses. Well, there's arguments on both sides, but doesn't yet seem to be a consensus on whether this is a real problem or not. Clarifying it probably can't hurt, though. It's also my impression there's no consensus, but what is the deciding enity in Debian on this matter: ftp-masters, the technical committee, ...? The ftp-masters have veto power over packages entering the archive, be it for technical or legal reasons. You might be able to appeal to the technical committee, but I doubt they would consider the matter without some kind of consensus on debian-legal that the ftp-masters are wrong. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp3QQ7k59zxC.pgp Description: PGP signature
