Re: Artistic License 2.0

2007-12-30 Thread Allison Randal
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

Re: Artistic License 2.0

2007-12-19 Thread Ben Finney
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 04:49:04 pm Ben Finney wrote: > > Debian considers the freedom of works, not license texts in > > isolation. > > Debian-legal reviews license text in isolation all the time. Perhaps. However, Debian isn't interested in free

Re: Freedom of Parrot (was: Artistic License 2.0)

2007-12-19 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:49:04AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not > > explicitly reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it? > Debian considers the freed

Re: Artistic License 2.0 (was: Freedom of Parrot)

2007-12-19 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 04:49:04 pm Ben Finney wrote: > Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not > > explicitly reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it? > > Debian considers the fr

Freedom of Parrot (was: Artistic License 2.0)

2007-12-19 Thread Ben Finney
Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not > explicitly reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it? Debian considers the freedom of works, not license texts in isolation. > This is currently relevan

Re: Artistic License 2.0

2007-12-19 Thread Francesco Poli
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:47:26 +0200 Allison Randal wrote: > The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not > explicitly reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it? Before reading the license terms in detail, I gave a look at the FSF license list[1], which

Re: Artistic License 2.0

2007-12-19 Thread John Halton
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 09:47:26PM +0200, Allison Randal wrote: > The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not explicitly > reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it? The text of the licence is at: http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0 Looking a

Artistic License 2.0

2007-12-19 Thread Allison Randal
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