perl modules licenses

[Radoslaw Zielinski]

Andrzej Krzysztofowicz <ankry at green.mif.pg.gda.pl> [29-08-2003 08:39]:
> 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.

IMHO it wouldn't harm.

Issue: the perl distribution contains Larry's interpretation of GPL
(in README).  Is this a part of the perl's license and should be
included in common-licenses?

>>> 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.

I don't like it.  Main reasons:

1. This is an interpretation of this unclear statement.  IMHO, we should
   keep away from it.  Inconvenient?  Who cares.  We're not supposed to
   resolve legal problems for users.

2. We lose information, which could possibly be of use for those, who
   would like to distribute PLD packages and drop the ones with weird
   licenses.

3. It's an unnecessary technical complication.

I don't like the idea of inheritance either, but I do agree with Bartek,
that it's an author's decision, not our.

> Can perl license change to be non-GPL compliant ?

Hard to say.  Can it be changed at all?

>> 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 ?

And what use would you have from such a statement?  It would mean
nothing in case of a lawsuit.

Bartek: do you know why I think it sucks, now?  Every licensing term
which makes us -- the packagers -- think about lawyers, just *suck*.

>> 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.

Hell, I won't touch the honour of taking any controversial "intelectual
properties" related decision with a seven metre long rod used for ritual
pig tickling; IANAL.  Luckily, if we won't agree, we can always pass the
case up to our "hit me" boy^W^W^W^W^W RM... ;-))

-- 
Radosław Zieliński <radek at karnet.pl>
[ GPG key: http://radek.karnet.pl/ ]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-en/attachments/20040626/064069cd/attachment-0002.bin