> "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

Reply via email to