On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 05:03:43PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
When I tried to get a Perl module with this license in Debian, I got the
following reason from James Troup for not accepting the above license
statement (and I quote):
Sorry to be pedantic but the only external files
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, isn't there quite a lot of stuff in main that already has this
problem? Would it be inaccurate to say that there's a whole heck
of a lot of precedent indicating that using this license language is
acceptable?
Only for perl packages AFAIK, and
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 08:41:25PM +, James Troup wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, isn't there quite a lot of stuff in main that already has this
problem? Would it be inaccurate to say that there's a whole heck
of a lot of precedent indicating that using this
Hi,
I would like to get some clarification regarding the use of the
following license statement in Perl modules:
This is free software, you may use and distribute this module under
the same terms as Perl itself.
which is then usually followed in the debian/copyright file by (added
by
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
On a Debian system a copy of the Perl license can be found in the file
'/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic'.
Or, as in my packages:
License: GPL, Artistic, available at /usr/share/common-licenses/{GPL,Artistic}
I would like to know
It's always usefull when people bring an issue up before a list to
provide appropriate links to the context in which the decisions are
being made, and or prior discussion on the decision. The threads on
debian-perl[1][2] dealing with this issue explain the problems pretty
well, and Colin and James
Hi,
I'm wondering why it is a bad idea that people just delegate their licensing
to another license, as is the case with the Perl modules. Maybe that is
exactly what they want as in we simply follow the Perl license, wherever
it takes us. If at some point they don't agree with what Perl itself
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
This is free software, you may use and distribute this module under
the same terms as Perl itself.
This doesn't seem ambiguous (or at least harmfully ambiguous) or non-free
to me. I have trouble reading it as anything more limited than
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 07:16:23PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
I mean, why should we force them to make a specific choice? They have in
already made a choice: to follow Perl. What's wrong with that?
I'm really curious as to what specifically and exactly is wrong with this
type of
The following cannot and should not be construed as legal advice. I am
not a lawyer.
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
Maybe that is exactly what they want as in we simply follow the Perl
license, wherever it takes us.
That's the question that is being asked. Is that really
10 matches
Mail list logo
