perl modules licenses

[Andrzej Krzysztofowicz]

Bartek Jakubski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 12:28:15AM +0200, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote:
> > Radoslaw Zielinski wrote:
> >> Bartek Jakubski <migo at supernet.com.pl> [27-08-2003 09:22]:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:50:29PM +0200, Radoslaw Zielinski wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>> Maybe we should put "same as perl" or something like this in the
> >>>> License fields?
> >>> Just after sending this message I thought about the same. "Same as Perl
> >>> itself".
> >> 
> >> OK for me.
> > 
> > I don't see any advantage for users of indirect licensing info here.
> > It is inconvenient. 
> 
> Yes, but that's what license says.

So do we need to put special license eg. named "perl" for this case into
common-licenses package ? Perl itself will not use it.

> > If we are aware of changing perl license, maybe implement an rpm macro, like
> > %{perl_license} ?
> 
> What happens if perl changes license? The modules no longer will be

IMVHO, if old perl version are still available under the present licensing
scheme, it will be no problem. You can use old perl version with modules on
the same licenses.

If perl license in distribution changes, the module licenses changes also.
So - my macro proposition: it could just extract the license from the perl
package.

Can perl license change to be non-GPL compliant ?

> available under the old licenses? I don't know, the license is unclear.
> I don't want to guess what author meant so let's put it exactly as he
> said.

Maybe just ask a lawyer ?

> It's mostly a matter of cosmetics for me. You decide. :-)

No. I am not the person, who decides. Radek is. I am just arguing.

-- 
=======================================================================
  Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz               ankry at mif.pg.gda.pl
  phone (48)(58) 347 14 61
Faculty of Applied Phys. & Math.,   Gdansk University of Technology