Being in the Perl community from where the Artistic licenses originate, I assume
the original intent was version 1.0, which is why the statement is unqualified.
That being said, I recommend that the copyright holder explicitly license it
under the Artistic 2.0, which is a much better version of the license, having
the same intent but being much more clear and legally solid.
-- Darren Duncan
On 2018-10-14 1:13 PM, Christoph Berg wrote:
Hi,
the Debian ftp masters pointed out that the pldebugger license is
ambiguous: The source code states this:
Licence
-------
The pl/pgsql debugger API is released under the Artistic Licence.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php
Copyright (c) 2004-2017 EnterpriseDB Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
... but the link to opensource.org (now) points to a disambiguation
page to choose between version 1.0 and 2.0 of the license.
Could you clarify which of the two you want there? (Or maybe a
combination like "1.0, or any later version".)
Thanks,
Christoph
