Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't know what has come of it, but there was a big discussion about
> changes to CPAN, including metadata about the modules, and if that ever
> happens/catches on, you just have a place in the metadata for what
> license(s) are used.
That's a very good idea; one that I was actually planning to bring up at
this years' p5p meeting---but instead we launched Perl6, and that made my
CPAN licensing points seemed like a tangential issue. ;)
We, as the Licensing WG, probably should to write a proposal for how CPAN to
handle this. It can likely wait until the first RFC process is done, but we
should decided for sure before Perl6 starts shipping.
For example, I'd like to see CPAN.pm warn you if you are about to install a
module which will, licensing-wise, force you down a GPL-only or AL-only fork
when you use it in your programs.
Also, someone might have to use a completely different license for other
reasons. For example, some modules are MPL-only because they are XS
interfaces to MPL-only systems. We should flag people about that.
(In fact, I don't even know that the MPL is compatible with the AL, so it
may not be feasible to install such a module at all...we'll need to find
that out.)
This is why I wrote an RFC that says, basically: "The Licensing Working
Group should live as long as Perl6 does". We need to face these issues as
they come up. There are far too many free software and open source licenses
for this problem to be easy to solve.
I hope the RFC to continue the life of this group will be accepted.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
