On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:24:45AM -0600, Sam TH wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:07:18AM -0500, Camm Maguire wrote: > > The Artistic License is widely considered problematic, on account of > it's vagueness. The FSF doesn't consider it a free license. I'm not > sure if Debian has an offical stance on it. > > Almost every piece of software that uses the Artistic License also > allows the GPL as an alternative license (this is the way Perl > works). This avoids the problems raised the by the Artistic License. > > You should let the upstream authors know about these problems. If > they really want people to be able to do all the things they mention > without restriction, they should consider the X license.
doh, you're right, wasn't thinking (i'll just blame that on that it's 4:20 and i just wokeup) *whistle*. -- Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org LPSG "member" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
