* David Golden <xda...@gmail.com> [2009-10-11T20:10:49]
> Given that one of the design criteria for 2.0 is to be limited in our
> changes, here's my proposal (not quite in patch format, but hopefully
> clear enough):
>
> 'license' [required]{string or arrayref} One or more licenses that apply
> in some way to the distribution. If more than one license is listed,
> distribution documentation should be consulted for details. The list of
> valid options includes:
>
> [incorporate the meta_name() from every existing Software::License
> subclasss, plus the existing non-license terms in M::B::API like
> 'open_source' and 'restrictive']
The meta_names are ambiguous. GPL_2 and GPL_3 both, for example, have to
resolve to "gpl."
I am all for something like this:
license is a required string or arrayref[string] of all the licenses that are
known to be at play for the dist; the list of valid options includes:
a list of unambiguous identifiers for real licenses
"other, open source"
"other, restrictive"
I am also happy to add a meta2_name method to all the Software::License classes
to avoid a direct connection between SL and META, but I don't want to keep
using the unsatisfactory list from the current spec.
> Reactions please?
Fine with me. All I ever wanted was to fix the ambiguous list!
--
rjbs
