> "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The FSF surely wants Perl to be under a GPL compatible license (and,
> >(GPL|SOMETHING) is always GPL-compatible, by default). I don't think the
> >FSF has ever expressed a desire that Perl be GPL-only. In fact, the FSF
> >has
> >a policy of encouraging everyone to always dual-licensing (GPL|Artistic)
> >for
> >Perl modules, to encourage uniformity, and avoid licensing confusion for
> >those who use lots of Perl modules.
Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you point me at this policy? My understanding from
> reading what Richard has written is that he would like it
> if all software were GPLed and GPL only.
GNU's policy on Perl licensing is on GNU's main license page,
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html. To quote it:
The license of perl.
[...]
We recommend you use this license for any Perl package you write, to
promote coherence and uniformity in Perl programming.
> Indeed the OSI would like it clarified as well partly because it is widely
> used. In fact item 1 of the OSD (which you can find at
> http://www.opensource.org/osd.html) was carefully written to avoid
> conflicting with item 5 of the Artistic License. I have seen Bruce Perens
> comment that it would be nice to tighten that item up.
Yes, IIRC, I believe I included references to these items in the RFC.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
