Shlomi: My reasoning for including all the other ones is that companies' legal teams may have decided that they can use GPL-licensed code, but have not investigated the other licenses. This way, they'd be able to say that the original copyright holder provided a provision licensing the code under the GPL, so they're already covered by their prior research.
What are your thoughts there? I thought publishing with license => 'unrestricted' would be most appropriate, since I don't want people to think that they are bound by the restrictions of the MIT License, when in reality, they are not. They can do whatever they want with it, it's public domain :-) I briefly skimmed over your article on the Perl Monks site (I think?) and it was my understanding that Artistic 2.0+ is the preferred license, which is considered compatible with GPL? Your idea is probably safer, though. Jonathan On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Shlomi Fish <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday 19 March 2009 18:23:23 Jonathan Yu wrote: >> Hi Shlomi, >> >> I've looked into the CC0 license that Scott mentioned, and it looks >> promising. >> >> I wonder if it is legally permissible to provide use of the code under >> several licenses, ie: >> >> 1. GPL (should it be GPL 2+ only?) >> 2. Artistic 2.0+ > > That should probably be "Artistic 1.0" and then "Artistic 2.0+". But see > below. > >> 3. Public Domain >> 4. CC0 >> 5. MIT >> 6. BSD >> >> Basically I want this code to be as free as possible, and I don't much >> care what people do with it. >> > > You can license your code under as many licenses as you please. For example, > jQuery ( http://jquery.com/ ) is dually licensed MITL and GPL, and cURL ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CURL ) used to be dually licensed MITL and MPL (= > Mozilla Public Licence). However, if you already decided to license under the > MIT/X11 Licence it is completely unnecessary to license it under any other > licence (except perhaps the Public Domain) because the MITL specifically > allows sub-licensing. Sub-licensing allows anyone to take your MITL work and > convert their copy into code of a different licence, free or non-free. > > So my suggestion is to licence your code under "Public Domain", "CC0" and > "MIT", and avoid the rest of the options, which will only be confusing. > >> Dominique's reference to Wikipedia's Public Domain text might be >> useful, too. Is it easier to do that? >> >> And this all still leaves the question, what do I do for META.yml's >> license field, and Build.PL's license part? >> > > Just say 'mit'. It's supported by later M::B's. > > Regards, > > Shlomi Fish > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ > My Aphorisms - http://www.shlomifish.org/humour.html > > God gave us two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we > read. > >
