On 11/05/2013 03:16 PM, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Kalinni Gorzkis
<musicdenotat...@gmail.com <mailto:musicdenotat...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    Can I distribute and modify the Perl 6 specification documents and
    test suite under which conditions? If not, I propose that they
    should be distributed under the Artistic License 2.0.

That is an excellent question.

I've checked the git sources, and from what I can see, the examples
repository is under AL 2.0, as is STD.pm, but the synopses are not.

I'm unsure as to whether this is an artifact of how things got added to
the git repository or not, perhaps someone else can clarify.

historically the test suite comes from the 'Pugs' SVN repository, which I later migrated to git (when the SVN server failed, and nobody wanted to maintain it), and split it up into multiple repositorys. At that time, I didn't consider license questions, just getting the technical details worked out.

The remainder of the Pugs SVN, which hasn't been split out into different repositories, now lives on github as perl6/mu, and it doesn't seem to have a catch-all license.

Somehow I have always worked under the assumption that it is under the Artistic License 2, just as Rakudo and NQP, and community concensus seem to agree with me. Therefor I've added an AL2 LICENSE file to the perl6/roast repository, and I hope that any former or current contributor that disagrees with the choice of license speaks up soon.

I have no idea if the AL2 is well suited for sets of documents, as the specification is. I'll leave that decision to Larry.


Reply via email to