On Wednesday 05 July 2006 15:02, Shlomi Fish wrote: > Test::Run is licence-compatible with the core.
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. > Some of Test::Run is > licensed under the GPL and Artistic (version 1.0) licence which is the > licence of the perl 5 core. The other part is licensed under the MIT X11 > license which can be freely linked against each one and can also be > converted to the Perl dual-license by anyone who re-distributes the code. Hypothetically speaking, if Test::Run gets in the core as a dual-lived module and maintains its current licensing, if I were to write a patch against it and submit it to p5p, would I have to license the patch as Artistic/GPL/BSD/MIT to match all of the licenses on the code? (Is it even *possible* to link all of those licenses together without the GPL trumping at least the latter two?) What if I use the standard Perl license? That part can go in the core, but it's more restrictive than your preferred license, so you can't use it. You're a smart guy and you have a lot to contribute, but there's a reason people complain when you wander so far away from the community and start doing things on your own: it's a real hassle for the rest of us. If you cannot or will not work with the community, don't be surprised when the community has little interest in working with you. (Please don't argue about how this is not a problem in theory. We're not working in theory here. We're working in practice, and in practice I have a Really Big Problem here that no amount of theoretical handwaving can dismiss.) -- c
