Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Perl 6 is already distributed under version 2.0, currently included in > the Parrot package. As are over a hundred Perl 6 modules, currently > included in the Pugs package. We haven't split them out into separate > Debian packages yet, but will in the next 6 months or so.
That's additional information that I didn't have. Are all hundred of those modules covered under the Artistic 2.0 license? I was under the impression that the Perl 6 modules in the archive were being packaged independently like the Perl 5 modules, since I think I've seen several of them already. I didn't realize that you had a monolithic package that you were going to break up. > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Perl 5 can never legally be released under this license so far as I can >> see. The Perl maintainers didn't do copyright assignment, so >> relicensing the existing Perl code base would require contacting every >> contributor and obtaining their permission to relicense their code. >> This isn't really feasible. > Version 2.0 of the license was intentionally drafted so it's entirely > compatible with version 1.0 of the license. It has the same terms, only > cleaner and more legally precise. It's a drop-in replacement, and > copyright assignments aren't necessary. Hm. I think you're going out on a considerable legal limb here, but presumably you've talked to a lawyer and have gotten a firm legal opinion before taking this step. I'm not a lawyer, so I won't question legal judgement, and the wording of the Artistic License is odd enough that this may be possible. However, in general, relicensing requires assignment or consent, so if you *haven't* gotten a specific legal opinion on exactly this question, I strongly recommend doing so before relicensing just to avoid unfortunate problems. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]