Rob Myers wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > someone did mention the QPL license earlier.
> > I looked at it, but my concern is that it
> > uses the word "software" everywhere.
>
> If the license isn't copyrighted,
> just search & replace.
I just checked. QPL is copy/distribute/no-modify.
> Or define "the software" to be your document.
uh, I didn't know you could do that.
I don't like redefining a word to mean something else.
reminds me too much of Humpty Dumpty.
But if it's legally acceptable, then that would work.
there wouldn't happen to be a lawyer on the list,
would there?
> > as far as Artistic License goes, it has the same
> > problems by refering to "software". Plus, isn't it
> > pretty much agreed that it's a shaky license?
> > I know they're intending on rewriting it for Perl 6.
>
> There's a revised artistic license available
> that addresses the concerns
> IIRC.
ah, new information. I thought it was coming out
with perl 6, which is a year or two before it sees
the light of day. I'll look into it.
Thanks,
Greg London
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
