Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
martin f krafft madd...@debian.org writes: All of my packages use the AL2 for packaging. Your numbers seem off. I usually say Released under the terms of the Artistic Licence 2.0 and I link to http://www.perlfoundation.org/legal/licenses/artistic-2_0.html Since this came up, while I don't want to make a big deal of this (particularly if ftpmaster doesn't care), I don't believe this is a valid Debian copyright file because it doesn't contain the license under which the work is distributed (only a reference to it). Policy 12.5 says: Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information and distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright. with only exceptions for common-licenses licenses. The peril of not doing this is underscored by the fact that the link you give above is invalid and leads to a 404. It's now: http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0 apparently. The Artistic 2.0 license, intriguingly, does not require that it be included in distributions of the package, but I would still always do so since otherwise one runs the risk of being ambiguous about what license is intended or making it unnecessarily difficult for people to find a copy. Also, the AL1 is only DFSG-free by overruling decision. The AL2 fixes that. It would be nice to make it easier, and give people an incentive, to deprecate AL1 so we can actually increase freedom in Debian. I don't think anything Debian does with regards to distributing this license will make any difference at all on who uses the original Artistic License. The vast majority of uses of it are by reference to the licensing terms of Perl, and I think changing the licensing terms of Perl will be the only thing that will make a difference. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: I think the general feeling was that by the time we have around 250 packages in the archive or so that are using it, it probably warrants inclusion, since we know that its use is going to grow in the long run. Last time I checked, which was quite some time ago, there were *way* fewer than that, and the surge of packages predicted in the previous thread appears not to have happened. Do you have a feel for how many there are now? Nearly a year later, I've now written a script to check through the archive for usage of various licenses. For the Artistic 2.0 license, it looks for: (?m)^License:.*Artistic-2 (DEP-5 format) The Artistic License 2\.0 (text found in the license) Based on that search, there are still only 20 binary packages in the archive covered by the Artistic 2.0 license. Given that, this license really isn't common in Debian, and hence doesn't warrant inclusion in common-licenses. For comparison's sake, the least-used license included in common-licenses (the GFDL) is used by 875 binary packages. I'm therefore marking this bug as rejected, although it will remain open for some time if anyone else disagrees and wants to make a case for its inclusion. Certainly if the license becomes more broadly used in the future, it can be proposed for inclusion again at that time. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:03:41 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Based on that search, there are still only 20 binary packages in the archive covered by the Artistic 2.0 license. Thanks for your research! Given that, this license really isn't common in Debian, and hence doesn't warrant inclusion in common-licenses. Agreed. Certainly if the license becomes more broadly used in the future, it can be proposed for inclusion again at that time. Some clear criterion might be helpful (and save you some time in the future :)) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `-NP: U2: With Or Without You signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org writes: On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:03:41 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Certainly if the license becomes more broadly used in the future, it can be proposed for inclusion again at that time. Some clear criterion might be helpful (and save you some time in the future :)) It's a much stronger justification if the usage hits the level of the least-frequently-used license family already in common-licenses, which at the moment puts the bar around 850 packages. Among the things that could change that to move the bar lower would be use as the license of very widely-installed packages. So, for instance, if the license of perl-base were ever changed to be the Artistic 2.0 license, I think you should propose again at that time to include it. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
also sprach gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org [2009.08.29.1423 +0200]: As a first approach I've grepped thruugh the lintian lab: gre...@bellini:/org/lintian.debian.org/laboratory/source$ egrep (Artistic License (Version )*2|Artistic-2) */debfiles/copyright | cut -f1 -d/ | uniq | wc -l 19 I might have missed something but the number doesn't seem very high in any case. (Which is a pity, since I also feel that having Artistic-2 in common-licenses would be nice. Maybe later :)) All of my packages use the AL2 for packaging. Your numbers seem off. I usually say Released under the terms of the Artistic Licence 2.0 and I link to http://www.perlfoundation.org/legal/licenses/artistic-2_0.html I vote for inclusion of the licence. It's well-established, and I cannot think of negative effects. We're not suggesting to include all OSI licences, just this one. Also, the AL1 is only DFSG-free by overruling decision. The AL2 fixes that. It would be nice to make it easier, and give people an incentive, to deprecate AL1 so we can actually increase freedom in Debian. I thought I had filed a bug requesting the addition against base-files 7-8 years ago, but I cannot find it. -- .''`. martin f. krafft madd...@d.o Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems der beruf ist eine schutzwehr, hinter welche man sich erlaubterweise zurückziehen kann, wenn bedenken und sorgen allgemeiner art einen anfallen. - friedrich nietzsche digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Le Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 02:23:26PM +0200, gregor herrmann a écrit : As a first approach I've grepped thruugh the lintian lab: gre...@bellini:/org/lintian.debian.org/laboratory/source$ egrep (Artistic License (Version )*2|Artistic-2) */debfiles/copyright | cut -f1 -d/ | uniq | wc -l 19 Interestingly, this list does not fully overlap with the result of a search for The Artistic Licence 2.0 using OpenGrok. http://walrus.rave.org/source/search?q=The+Artistic+Licence+2.0; This said, I would like to add my voice to say that since there are good reasons to think that the Artistic license 2.0 will become a common license some days, even if it takes a few years, it would be kind to add it in the common license list in advance, to save the maintainer's time from adding it to debian/copyright now and removing later. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
While on principle I agree with Charles Plessy about the merits of including this license despite not having the critical mass that Debian would like, I understand the view of those in the policy team and respect their decision. For what it's worth, I've added a machine-readable-copyright-format-compatible Artistic-2.0 license text to: http://pkg-perl.alioth.debian.org/copyright.html -- in reality, I've only come across a few Artistic-2.0 licensed modules (the rest are semi-ambiguous same terms as Perl -- which gets confusing with the abundance of Perl6:: modules, but I digress). I still consider having to copy-and-paste that license (and later having to remove it and replace it with a reference to the one in common-licenses) papercuts -- they're annoying, but not the end of the world. And I guess we won't have to worry about removing them for another few years yet.. so we can let future-me deal with it :-) On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Charles Plessyple...@debian.org wrote: Le Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 02:23:26PM +0200, gregor herrmann a écrit : As a first approach I've grepped thruugh the lintian lab: gre...@bellini:/org/lintian.debian.org/laboratory/source$ egrep (Artistic License (Version )*2|Artistic-2) */debfiles/copyright | cut -f1 -d/ | uniq | wc -l 19 Interestingly, this list does not fully overlap with the result of a search for The Artistic Licence 2.0 using OpenGrok. http://walrus.rave.org/source/search?q=The+Artistic+Licence+2.0; This said, I would like to add my voice to say that since there are good reasons to think that the Artistic license 2.0 will become a common license some days, even if it takes a few years, it would be kind to add it in the common license list in advance, to save the maintainer's time from adding it to debian/copyright now and removing later. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:43:21 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: I notice this has been discussed quite a bit previously (though something like 18 months ago), and the general idea I have gathered from reading is that the Artistic License, version 2.0 is not yet popular enough to warrant inclusion in common-licenses. I think the general feeling was that by the time we have around 250 packages in the archive or so that are using it, it probably warrants inclusion, since we know that its use is going to grow in the long run. Last time I checked, which was quite some time ago, there were *way* fewer than that, and the surge of packages predicted in the previous thread appears not to have happened. Do you have a feel for how many there are now? As a first approach I've grepped thruugh the lintian lab: gre...@bellini:/org/lintian.debian.org/laboratory/source$ egrep (Artistic License (Version )*2|Artistic-2) */debfiles/copyright | cut -f1 -d/ | uniq | wc -l 19 I might have missed something but the number doesn't seem very high in any case. (Which is a pity, since I also feel that having Artistic-2 in common-licenses would be nice. Maybe later :)) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG Key IDs: 0x00F3CFE4, 0x8649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/ `-NP: Supertramp: Child Of Vision signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Hi everyone: I notice this has been discussed quite a bit previously (though something like 18 months ago), and the general idea I have gathered from reading is that the Artistic License, version 2.0 is not yet popular enough to warrant inclusion in common-licenses. As we're inching closer to Perl 6 actually being on the horizon, I think we should take another look at whether this license would be a good candidate for inclusion. Some modules (in particular one I'm working on right now, libtext-context-eitherside-perl) are explicitly licensed under Artistic-2.0. Moreover, if/when Perl 6 is completed, it's likely that lots of modules will choose to license themselves as same terms as Perl itself, which, for Perl6 modules, would be the Artistic License 2.0. Even if it's not a common license per se, given the length of the document I think it'd be tremendously helpful to prevent duplication. This isn't a case of the BSD or MIT licenses where the license itself is only a few kilobytes. No, the Artistic License 2 is a rather heavy thing, 180 lines and weighing 9453 characters once I've got it wrapped and put in the appropriate format for debian/copyright. I think this is worth another look. As of right now it's not a *huge* issue, just feels like a papercut every time I come across a module licensed as Artistic-2.0 Cheers, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Jonathan Yu jonathan.i...@gmail.com writes: I notice this has been discussed quite a bit previously (though something like 18 months ago), and the general idea I have gathered from reading is that the Artistic License, version 2.0 is not yet popular enough to warrant inclusion in common-licenses. I think the general feeling was that by the time we have around 250 packages in the archive or so that are using it, it probably warrants inclusion, since we know that its use is going to grow in the long run. Last time I checked, which was quite some time ago, there were *way* fewer than that, and the surge of packages predicted in the previous thread appears not to have happened. Do you have a feel for how many there are now? -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Hmmm... Russ and Gunnar seem to have traded positions. Whatever the policy group decides is, of course, fine. Just let us know. I'll check back in a few months if I don't hear anything more. Gunnar Wolf wrote: I'm more worried about the tons of changes this will inflict on the pkg-perl group ;-) But well, that's just me. Agreed. That's one reason we plan to maintain our own packages, at least for the core. Allison -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Russ Allbery wrote: That's additional information that I didn't have. Are all hundred of those modules covered under the Artistic 2.0 license? Yes, with the exception of 3 explicitly mentioned in the README. I was under the impression that the Perl 6 modules in the archive were being packaged independently like the Perl 5 modules, since I think I've seen several of them already. I didn't realize that you had a monolithic package that you were going to break up. What you've likely seen is the Perl 5 modules that emulate parts of Perl 6 syntax. Those are all named Perl6::something. Hm. I think you're going out on a considerable legal limb here, but presumably you've talked to a lawyer and have gotten a firm legal opinion before taking this step. I'm not a lawyer, so I won't question legal judgement, and the wording of the Artistic License is odd enough that this may be possible. However, in general, relicensing requires assignment or consent, so if you *haven't* gotten a specific legal opinion on exactly this question, I strongly recommend doing so before relicensing just to avoid unfortunate problems. Indeed, we got legal counsel on the question before we even started to revise the license. The legal steps are squared away. There is still a community process for the update, because that's the way Perl development works. Allison -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russ Allbery wrote: I was under the impression that the Perl 6 modules in the archive were being packaged independently like the Perl 5 modules, since I think I've seen several of them already. I didn't realize that you had a monolithic package that you were going to break up. What you've likely seen is the Perl 5 modules that emulate parts of Perl 6 syntax. Those are all named Perl6::something. Aha! Okay, in that case, I think I've changed my mind and we should go ahead and include Artistic 2.0 in the common-licenses directory, although I'd welcome comments from other debian-policy readers. Indeed, we got legal counsel on the question before we even started to revise the license. The legal steps are squared away. There is still a community process for the update, because that's the way Perl development works. Okay, I won't worry about it then. It's good news for the whole community, to be sure, since the new license is much better! Thanks for your patience with correcting my misunderstandings. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Russ Allbery dijo [Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 05:23:17PM -0800]: Perl 6 is already distributed under version 2.0, currently included in the Parrot package. As are over a hundred Perl 6 modules, currently included in the Pugs package. We haven't split them out into separate Debian packages yet, but will in the next 6 months or so. That's additional information that I didn't have. Are all hundred of those modules covered under the Artistic 2.0 license? I was under the impression that the Perl 6 modules in the archive were being packaged independently like the Perl 5 modules, since I think I've seen several of them already. I didn't realize that you had a monolithic package that you were going to break up. The Perl 6 modules currently in the archive are, confusingly as it seems, for Perl 5. That means, excluding Pugs (which is a Perl 6 ongoing implementation): libperl6-export-perl - Implements the Perl 6 'is export(...)' trait libperl6-form-perl - perl - Perl6::Form - Implements the Perl 6 'form' built-in libperl6-junction-perl - Perl6 style Junction operators in Perl5. libperl6-say-perl - print -- but no newline needed libperl6-slurp-perl - Implements the Perl 6 'slurp' built-in So, (for the simplest example), if in your Perl5 code you say: use Perl6::Say; say 'onara'; it will work as it would in Perl6, and put a newline after the string. But anyway, as for the licensing: This module's licensing reads: COPYRIGHT Copyright (c) 2004, Damian Conway. All Rights Reserved. This module is free software. It may be used, redistributed and/or modified under the same terms as Perl itself. So, once again: What is Perl itself? Here, I'd think it means Perl 5, as it's the only Perl able to use this. But again, if Perl is to change its licensing... This copyright string becomes ambiguous. Anyway... Allison, I do agree with Russ on this thread: We still are not -as said in Spanish- close to the river. We shall see how to cross the bridge once we get there - The license is not yet a common license, but it presumably will become soon. I'm more worried about the tons of changes this will inflict on the pkg-perl group ;-) But well, that's just me. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Russ Allbery wrote: Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of how commonly they're used in the archive. Currently, there are only about five packages in the archive covered by this license, so I don't believe this is warranted at this time. Basically, the license isn't common. GPL-3 isn't common either, yet. But it is included, because it's the latest version of a license that is quite common, and it's expected that many packages will update their license. The Debian Policy Manual states that packages released under the Artistic License should refer to the files in /usr/share/common-licenses. I intended to comply with that policy for the updated Parrot packages, but found I couldn't since the directory only contained an old version of the license. Allison -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Russ Allbery dijo [Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:16:13AM -0800]: I'd like to request the addition of the file: http://www.perlfoundation.org/attachment/legal/artistic-2_0.txt as Artistic-2 in /usr/share/common-licenses/. Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of how commonly they're used in the archive. Currently, there are only about five packages in the archive covered by this license, so I don't believe this is warranted at this time. Basically, the license isn't common. Many Perl modules are just licensed under the same terms as Perl itself, so as soon as Perl is released under this license, we will have several hundreds of packages automagically under it. Of course, this will require updating/changing many of them (as Perl6 is not backwards-compatible)... But I do see a case for including this license in common-licenses. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russ Allbery wrote: Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of how commonly they're used in the archive. Currently, there are only about five packages in the archive covered by this license, so I don't believe this is warranted at this time. Basically, the license isn't common. GPL-3 isn't common either, yet. I don't believe that's correct. The FSF has already converted all of their software to GPLv3, which is a substantial amount of software. The GPLv3 was indeed a special case for a variety of reasons that the Artistic License doesn't share, most notably because of the or any later version clause in the licenses of many GPL-covered packages. However, while I don't have time at the moment to do the half-hour grep to confirm, I expect the GPLv3 either has already or is well on its way to reaching a couple hundred packages just from the FSF relicensings. But it is included, because it's the latest version of a license that is quite common, and it's expected that many packages will update their license. When that happens, let us know. It hasn't happened yet, and such mass license changes are frequently not as fast as people think that they will be. The FSF is in a unique position of leverage not shared by any organization that doesn't do copyright assignment. I wish you the best of luck, since the newer license has much clearer wording, but I think we should stick with something fairly objective, like a count of packages using the license. Around a couple hundred packages in the archive is the threshold for me personally for wanting to look at including a long license in common-licenses. The Debian Policy Manual states that packages released under the Artistic License should refer to the files in /usr/share/common-licenses. I intended to comply with that policy for the updated Parrot packages, but found I couldn't since the directory only contained an old version of the license. The original Artistic License is called simply that, so the Policy manual can't easily refer to Artistic License version 1 or the like. The Artistic License 2.0 is a completely different license from the Artistic License. This is unfortunately confusing, but the confusion stems from the naming of the licenses. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Many Perl modules are just licensed under the same terms as Perl itself, so as soon as Perl is released under this license, we will have several hundreds of packages automagically under it. Of course, this will require updating/changing many of them (as Perl6 is not backwards-compatible)... But I do see a case for including this license in common-licenses. Right, this is really a question of Perl 6. Perl 5 can never legally be released under this license so far as I can see. The Perl maintainers didn't do copyright assignment, so relicensing the existing Perl code base would require contacting every contributor and obtaining their permission to relicense their code. This isn't really feasible. Perl 6, of course, is another matter, and I do expect that if the Perl 6 effort succeeds, we'll end up wanting this license in common-licenses at that point. But... well, basically, I'm not really comfortable with including new licenses based on speculation of what might happen, mostly because it opens the door to a lot of license requests and a lot of Policy changes. My feeling is that inclusion in common-licenses should be fairly conservative. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Russ Allbery wrote: Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Many Perl modules are just licensed under the same terms as Perl itself, so as soon as Perl is released under this license, we will have several hundreds of packages automagically under it. Of course, this will require updating/changing many of them (as Perl6 is not backwards-compatible)... But I do see a case for including this license in common-licenses. Right, this is really a question of Perl 6. Perl 6 is already distributed under version 2.0, currently included in the Parrot package. As are over a hundred Perl 6 modules, currently included in the Pugs package. We haven't split them out into separate Debian packages yet, but will in the next 6 months or so. If you want me to wait 6 months and ask again, I can. It just made more sense to me to ask before we create a hundred or so 'copyright' files for a hundred or so packages. Perl 5 can never legally be released under this license so far as I can see. The Perl maintainers didn't do copyright assignment, so relicensing the existing Perl code base would require contacting every contributor and obtaining their permission to relicense their code. This isn't really feasible. Version 2.0 of the license was intentionally drafted so it's entirely compatible with version 1.0 of the license. It has the same terms, only cleaner and more legally precise. It's a drop-in replacement, and copyright assignments aren't necessary. Allison -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perl 6 is already distributed under version 2.0, currently included in the Parrot package. As are over a hundred Perl 6 modules, currently included in the Pugs package. We haven't split them out into separate Debian packages yet, but will in the next 6 months or so. That's additional information that I didn't have. Are all hundred of those modules covered under the Artistic 2.0 license? I was under the impression that the Perl 6 modules in the archive were being packaged independently like the Perl 5 modules, since I think I've seen several of them already. I didn't realize that you had a monolithic package that you were going to break up. Russ Allbery wrote: Perl 5 can never legally be released under this license so far as I can see. The Perl maintainers didn't do copyright assignment, so relicensing the existing Perl code base would require contacting every contributor and obtaining their permission to relicense their code. This isn't really feasible. Version 2.0 of the license was intentionally drafted so it's entirely compatible with version 1.0 of the license. It has the same terms, only cleaner and more legally precise. It's a drop-in replacement, and copyright assignments aren't necessary. Hm. I think you're going out on a considerable legal limb here, but presumably you've talked to a lawyer and have gotten a firm legal opinion before taking this step. I'm not a lawyer, so I won't question legal judgement, and the wording of the Artistic License is odd enough that this may be possible. However, in general, relicensing requires assignment or consent, so if you *haven't* gotten a specific legal opinion on exactly this question, I strongly recommend doing so before relicensing just to avoid unfortunate problems. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
reassign 458385 debian-policy thanks On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Allison Randal wrote: Package: base-files Version: 4.0.1 Severity: wishlist I'd like to request the addition of the file: http://www.perlfoundation.org/attachment/legal/artistic-2_0.txt as Artistic-2 in /usr/share/common-licenses/. This should have been a bug against debian-policy, as explained in base-files FAQ. Reassigning. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: reassign 458385 debian-policy thanks On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Allison Randal wrote: Package: base-files Version: 4.0.1 Severity: wishlist I'd like to request the addition of the file: http://www.perlfoundation.org/attachment/legal/artistic-2_0.txt as Artistic-2 in /usr/share/common-licenses/. Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of how commonly they're used in the archive. Currently, there are only about five packages in the archive covered by this license, so I don't believe this is warranted at this time. Basically, the license isn't common. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Package: base-files Version: 4.0.1 Severity: wishlist I'd like to request the addition of the file: http://www.perlfoundation.org/attachment/legal/artistic-2_0.txt as Artistic-2 in /usr/share/common-licenses/. Thanks, Allison -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
