Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> I was under the impression that the Perl 6 modules in the archive were >> being packaged independently like the Perl 5 modules, since I think >> I've seen several of them already. I didn't realize that you had a >> monolithic package that you were going to break up.
> What you've likely seen is the Perl 5 modules that emulate parts of Perl 6 > syntax. Those are all named "Perl6::something". Aha! Okay, in that case, I think I've changed my mind and we should go ahead and include Artistic 2.0 in the common-licenses directory, although I'd welcome comments from other debian-policy readers. > Indeed, we got legal counsel on the question before we even started to > revise the license. The legal steps are squared away. There is still a > community process for the update, because that's the way Perl > development works. Okay, I won't worry about it then. It's good news for the whole community, to be sure, since the new license is much better! Thanks for your patience with correcting my misunderstandings. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
