On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 11:55:34AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 08:02:05PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 07:29:58PM +0100, Gergely Madarasz wrote: > > > Since I started working on the ftp archive, I've found at least three > > > packages in incoming which come with a licence like this: > > > > > > This library is free software; you can redistribute it > > > and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. > > `The same licence as perl' is one of the most popular license in > > the free world. And I like it because I dont have to look > > into every perl module's copyright for 2 pages of text, which > > points you to 2 other licenses and then explains how to > > use one of them. > > Isn't that sweet? > > > You shouldnt shut down packages just for using this > > without prior consensus that this practice have to be finished. > > There is neither consensus nor even a discusion on this topic ! > > If you really find the same as perl licence a problem, submit > > as wishlist bug to package containing `/usr/share/common-licenses/' > > Or, alternately, you (or the applicable maintainer/s) shouldn't add > incomplete license terms in /usr/doc/*/copyright without prior consensus, > or without starting an open discussion on the matter, or should consider > filing a wishlist bug to get it added to /usr/share/common-licenses. > > Sheesh. The ftp-maintainers aren't meant to do everything for you. Get > off their backs. > > Cheers, > aj, who thinks having it added to /usr/share/common-licenses would probably > be reasonable.
I do !
