Russ Allbery wrote:
Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Many Perl modules are just licensed "under the same terms as Perl
itself", so as soon as Perl is released under this license, we will have
several hundreds of packages automagically under it.
Of course, this will require updating/changing many of them (as Perl6 is
not backwards-compatible)... But I do see a case for including this
license in common-licenses.
Right, this is really a question of Perl 6.
Perl 6 is already distributed under version 2.0, currently included in
the Parrot package. As are over a hundred Perl 6 modules, currently
included in the Pugs package. We haven't split them out into separate
Debian packages yet, but will in the next 6 months or so.
If you want me to wait 6 months and ask again, I can. It just made more
sense to me to ask before we create a hundred or so 'copyright' files
for a hundred or so packages.
Perl 5 can never legally be released under this license so far as I can
see. The Perl maintainers didn't do copyright assignment, so relicensing
the existing Perl code base would require contacting every contributor and
obtaining their permission to relicense their code. This isn't really
feasible.
Version 2.0 of the license was intentionally drafted so it's entirely
compatible with version 1.0 of the license. It has the same terms, only
cleaner and more legally precise. It's a drop-in replacement, and
copyright assignments aren't necessary.
Allison
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
