Hi guys, Cheers for the elaborate thread that emerged from my graveyard bump.
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> It seems like the CPAN module authors are going to have to be involved
> ("harrassed") somehow, unless "openssl" is considered sufficiently
> different from "OpenSSL" to invalidate stanza 5 of the OpenSSL license.
>
> --dkg
>
I'm a bit perplexed that the module authors have anything to do with
this as long as they are clearly stating their code is released under
the artistic license.
Should Debian concern itself (too much) with the authority of such a
claim? Is it debians task to mediate between all open source forges
around the world and their claims for licensing?
Apologies if this is in the debian policy.
Sincere Regards,
Kai Storbeck
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
