On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 08:41:25PM +, James Troup wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, isn't there quite a lot of stuff in main that already has this
> > "problem"? Would it be inaccurate to say that there's a whole heck
> > of a lot of precedent indicating that us
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, isn't there quite a lot of stuff in main that already has this
> "problem"? Would it be inaccurate to say that there's a whole heck
> of a lot of precedent indicating that using this license language is
> acceptable?
Only for perl packages AFAI
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 05:03:43PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> When I tried to get a Perl module with this license in Debian, I got the
> following reason from James Troup for not accepting the above license
> statement (and I quote):
>
> Sorry to be pedantic but the only external fil
The following cannot and should not be construed as legal advice. I am
not a lawyer.
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> Maybe that is exactly what they want as in "we simply follow the Perl
> license, wherever it takes us".
That's the question that is being asked. Is that really
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 07:16:23PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> I mean, why should we force them to make a specific choice? They have in
> already made a choice: to follow Perl. What's wrong with that?
>
> I'm really curious as to what specifically and exactly is wrong with this
> type o
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> This is free software, you may use and distribute this module under
> the same terms as Perl itself.
This doesn't seem ambiguous (or at least harmfully ambiguous) or non-free
to me. I have trouble reading it as anything more limited than
Hi,
I'm wondering why it is a bad idea that people just delegate their licensing
to another license, as is the case with the Perl modules. Maybe that is
exactly what they want as in "we simply follow the Perl license, wherever
it takes us". If at some point they don't agree with what Perl itself
It's always usefull when people bring an issue up before a list to
provide appropriate links to the context in which the decisions are
being made, and or prior discussion on the decision. The threads on
debian-perl[1][2] dealing with this issue explain the problems pretty
well, and Colin and James
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> On a Debian system a copy of the Perl license can be found in the file
> '/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic'.
Or, as in my packages:
License: GPL, Artistic, available at /usr/share/common-licenses/{GPL,Artistic}
> I would like to know
Hi,
I would like to get some clarification regarding the use of the
following license statement in Perl modules:
This is free software, you may use and distribute this module under
the same terms as Perl itself.
which is then usually followed in the debian/copyright file by (added
by the
10 matches
Mail list logo
