On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 09:52:04PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi, > > There is a very long thread about the Artistic License; if it is > a Free Software license according to the DFSG or not. Whatever the > outcome of that discussion I think that it is clear that the Artictic > License is indeed a very vague license. Which seems to be why the > discussion is so long. (Even though I do indeed believe that the license > was made in the same spirit as the DFSG when Larry Wall wrote it.) > > I looked on my system and could not find any packages that were > actually licensed under only the Artistic License. All packages that > are licensed under the Artistic License are (just as perl) licensed > under both the Artistic and the GPL. This seems to suggest that if > there are packages (or proposals for packages) under only the Artistic > License that it would be a good idea/consistent to either ask the > author to relicense under the Clarified Artistic License or dual > license with the GPL.
In view of actual data (gasp), and the fact that John and my
discussion seems exceedingly unlikely to convince either one of us, I
suggest that we decide to do the following things:
1) Drop the argument
2) Not try to change the Social Contract
3) Reccomend strongly to all authors that attempt to use *only* the AL
that they use the clarified version instead, or that they use the
technique that Perl uses.
How does that sound?
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
pgpYNMKfep0xS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
