This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. On Sun, 09 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> Perhaps (taking the GPL as a hint): >> >> This module is available under the same terms and conditions as >> Perl itself, version 5.3 or (at your option) any later version.
I brought the issue up on perlmonks in a mediation, and Jenda
suggested a similar clarification.[1]
I personally would recommend making it exactly like the GPL's clause:
This module is available under the same terms and conditions as
Perl version 5.3 itself, or the same terms and conditions as any
later version of Perl itself at your option.
Primarily because I think it's clearer, and parentheticals are strange
in legal documents. But I suspect that it would be interpreted as more
verbose version of the clause that Glenn wrote above.
> But this still does not mention explicitly the licenses (GPL+Artistic)
> and that seems to be the key issue.
That was one of the problems that was brought up, but it stemed from
the fact that the copyright/license statement doesn't dictate which
version of perl's terms the module is licensed under.
Don Armstrong
1: http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=232825
--
Guns Don't Kill People.
*I* Kill People.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgpVK7qObmwT0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
