* Barbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-06-06 11:35]:
> (Spec 1.4) [required] {map} The license(s) under which this
> distribution may be used and redistributed, using a YAML
> mapping to describe the version and the file or url containing
> the full text of the license. For a full list of acknowledged
> licenses please see the Software::License distribution -
> http://search.cpan.org/dist/Software-License.
>
> version
>
> (Spec 1.4) [required] Explicit version number of the license
> under which the distribution is being distributed.
I disagree with this. Version numbers on licences are just a
naming sleight of hand. GPLv3 differs drastically from GPLv2,
and while Artistic 2.0 is the spiritual successor to the Artistic
Licence, in legal terms at least it is a completely new beast.
The “version number” is part of the name. There is no GPL; there
are GPL1, GPL2 and GPL3, and you must specify which you mean. In
case of the Artistic Licence, there is no 1.0 version as it was
never called Artistic 1.0 prior to the work on Artistic 2.0.
Using a version number in the name is purely a marketing device.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
