On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 14:40 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:25:57 +1200, Andrew McMillan wrote: > > > If the code is v1-or-later then a trivial fork (by the original > > developer) is able to relicense it as v2-or-later or v3-or-later. If > > the original developer is unhappy with doing that, then they do have > > uncommon licensing desires. > > Most perl modules are licensed "under the same terms as Perl itself", > and perl is licensed under "GPL-1 or later" or Artistic.
Trying to get the significant number of upstream perl module copyright
holders to fork and relicense would probably be a fruitless adventure.
In fact upstream perl module developers may be reluctant to deviate from
Perl's copyright, quoting the FSF [1]:
License of Perl 5 and below
This license is the disjunction of the Artistic License 1.0 and
the GNU GPL—in other words, you can choose either of those two
licenses. It qualifies as a free software license, but it may
not be a real copyleft. It is compatible with the GNU GPL
because the GNU GPL is one of the alternatives.
We recommend you use this license for any Perl 4 or Perl 5
package you write, to promote coherence and uniformity in Perl
programming. Outside of Perl, we urge you not to use this
license; it is better to use just the GNU GPL.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense
--
Matt Zagrabelny - mzagr...@d.umn.edu - (218) 726 8844
University of Minnesota Duluth
Information Technology Systems & Services
PGP key 4096R/42A00942 2009-12-16
Fingerprint: 5814 2CCE 2383 2991 83FF C899 07E2 BFA8 42A0 0942
He is not a fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot
lose.
-Jim Elliot
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
