That's an interesting idea, but I think I want to go with the community consensus. Nobody seems to express a problem with the Perl dual-license not being liberal enough. The Perl Foundation's licensing advice centers on it. And even the FSF, for Perl modules, suggests that following the Perl community consensus is the best way to go.
Under the LGPL, there were cases where the company lawyers told people they could not read my code. After reflection, I decided to accept that this was a problem. A dual LGPL-Artistic 1.0 license would, in theory, be more liberal. But we're fortunate to have an almost universal community consensus, and staying within it makes life easier all around. On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:05 AM, Ed Avis <[email protected]> wrote: > If you want to make the licence strictly more liberal than before, you > could > make it 'LGPL or Artistic' rather than 'GPL or Artistic'. > > -- > Ed Avis <[email protected]> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "marpa parser" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "marpa parser" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
