Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, isn't there quite a lot of stuff in main that already has this > "problem"? Would it be inaccurate to say that there's a whole heck > of a lot of precedent indicating that using this license language is > acceptable?
Only for perl packages AFAIK, and precedent doesn't mean all that much? e.g. there was plenty of precedent for "overlooking" the SSL vs. GPL problem, that doesn't mean IMO that we shouldn't have ever started dealing with it. > One way to interpret this language might be "this work is licensed under > any license that has ever applied to Perl, past or present". Since that > set uncontroversially includes version 2 of the GNU GPL, this > interpretation should plant all works so licensed firmly into > DFSG-orthodoxy. > > Does anyone have a problem with the above interpretation? Well, some of what I said on debian-perl applies. http://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2003/debian-perl-200301/msg00004.html And also see: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200302/msg00044.html --- Incidentally, people might want to read the two threads about this subject on debian-perl. Ardo has a serious chip on his shoulder about the whole thing. The fact is I rejected a package of his which (AFAICR) said little more than "same terms as perl" and at best had a pointer to perl's copyright file. If people want to ignore the issues like "what is Perl" and similar, that's fine, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for at least a pointer to one of the licenses in base-files[1] (as required by policy). We've rejected (and will continue to reject) packages for similar things (e.g. mozilla-locale-foo referring to mozilla's copyright file or an external MPL file). Both Colin and I already told Ardo how to proceed but that doesn't matter because he's got an agenda and it's not about getting clarification. -- James [1] I even said this would be sufficent in the first linked mail and http://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2003/debian-perl-200301/msg00019.html
