John Halton wrote:
> Out of interest, is there any reason why the developers of Parrot have
> adopted this licence rather than the GPL, given that the code (with
> trivial modifications) can be relicensed under the GPL anyway?
The usual variety of reasons. Partly historical. Partly for greater
c
The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not
explicitly reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it?
This is currently relevant as the Parrot project is adopting the
orphaned Debian Parrot packages, and is now licensed only under the
Artistic License 2.0. (The previ
2 matches
Mail list logo
