How to ask Upstream for clarification of under the same terms as Perl itself license

Hi, I have just had a package rejected by ftpmaster because the copyright file contained |This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or |modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. See |/usr/share/common-licenses and /usr/share/doc/perl/copyright. ftpmaster basically says that

Re: How to ask Upstream for clarification of under the same terms as Perl itself license

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Marc Haber wrote: I have just had a package rejected by ftpmaster because the copyright file contained |This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or |modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. See |/usr/share/common-licenses and

Re: How to ask Upstream for clarification of under the same terms as Perl itself license

Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From the long -legal thread[1], many acknowledged this as a possible problem, and recommended where possible that upstreams be made aware of the flexibility of interpretation of the perl style copyright/licensing clause. I'm one of the maintainers of

Re: How to ask Upstream for clarification of under the same terms as Perl itself license

[Setting followup to -legal] On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Russ Allbery wrote: but if someone can recommend alternate wording that would preserve the same spirit but avoid the potential problems that you've seen, or alternately something that I can add that explains those potential problems for module