Perhaps these help? http://pugs.blogs.com/pugs/2005/02/day_28_609.html
https://www.google.com/#q=site:http%3A%2F%2Fpugs.blogs.com%2F+licensing -- raiph On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Moritz Lenz <mor...@faui2k3.org> wrote: > Hi, > > > 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. > > Cheers, > Moritz > -- raiph
