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]
