On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 6:46 AM Darren Duncan <dar...@darrenduncan.net> wrote:
> Being in the Perl community from where the Artistic licenses originate, I > assume > the original intent was version 1.0, which is why the statement is > unqualified. > It was. > > That being said, I recommend that the copyright holder explicitly license > it > under the Artistic 2.0, which is a much better version of the license, > having > the same intent but being much more clear and legally solid. > And I have,. Thanks! > > -- Darren Duncan > > On 2018-10-14 1:13 PM, Christoph Berg wrote: > > Hi, > > > > the Debian ftp masters pointed out that the pldebugger license is > > ambiguous: The source code states this: > > > > Licence > > ------- > > > > The pl/pgsql debugger API is released under the Artistic Licence. > > > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php > > > > Copyright (c) 2004-2017 EnterpriseDB Corporation. All Rights Reserved. > > > > ... but the link to opensource.org (now) points to a disambiguation > > page to choose between version 1.0 and 2.0 of the license. > > > > Could you clarify which of the two you want there? (Or maybe a > > combination like "1.0, or any later version".) > > > > Thanks, > > Christoph > > > > > > > -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
