On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, David Nicol wrote:
On 2/21/07, Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Insisting on _a_ license is actually a really good idea. Absent an
explicit license, CPAN does not have the right to redistribute the
software, nor do mirrors.
that's nonsense. CPAN is equipment, it is not an actor with moral compass.
Gee, thanks for the ad hominem!
I'm not sure what you mean by equipment. CPAN's equipment is owned by
people, corporations, and other institutions. These are all legal entities
that can be said to be distributing software uploaded via PAUSE. Just
because that distribution is automated via code does not automatically
absolve them of responsibility.
Now, it's possible that a CPAN mirror operator could make a legal argument
that they should be not be held liable for carrying this content, but we
don't know if that would hold water. I'd guess
Moreover, that still doesn't address the issue of end-user usability. If a
a piece of software is basically unusable by anyone, because the license
is gibberish (ala PerlBuildSystem), then why shouldn't CPAN remove it?
There's no reason we shouldn't enforce some _minimal_ community standards
here. CPAN is a service provided by people for free, and they have no
obligation to host anything one could upload.
They may have violated their license themselves when they uploaded it.
The author can't really violate the license in a legal sense, though their
upload may have unintended effects. The license is a grant of distribution
and usage right. The author already has all possible rights, and is not
bound by their own license.
-dave
/*===================================================
VegGuide.Org www.BookIRead.com
Your guide to all that's veg. My book blog
===================================================*/
