Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:44:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> So my original statement that not many packages are in that situation
>> is kind of true and kind of not, depending on how you feel about the
>> Perl situation. (I don't know of any packages that say *only* GPL v1.)
> If we distribute under GPL-1, then the license should be on the system,
> IMO.
Absolutely. However, by my reading of the phrasing of the perl copyright
file and the most-commonly-used boilerplate on most of the module
packages, we're sort of distributing it under v3 of the GPL. That's the
license that we're pointing users to (since we're not using a versioned
link). But we're not being particularly explicit.
I don't think this is actually the right thing to do, but it looks like
that's what we're doing at the moment.
Here's the text of the relevant section of the Perl copyright file:
Copyright 1989-2001, Larry Wall All rights reserved.
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of either:
a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later
version, or
b) the "Artistic License" which comes with Perl.
On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General
Public License can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL' and
the Artistic Licence in `/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic'.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
