[ Please keep ftpmaster@ in the Cc for any replies, we're not subscribed to this list. ]
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > in context it's already clear and exactly what they want to say. I think you're being generous in claiming that it's exactly they want to say: as you pointed out it's extraordinarily common and I think a large number of modules authors will do it because "that's what everyone else does" (much in the same way that a fair amount of code ends up under the GPL despite the author not really understanding what that means). I don't think it's at all clear (what's "perl" in context of the license? what happens if perl (the real thing) is released under a new license?) and we wouldn't accept such an equivocal license in any other context, so I don't see why we should special-case perl modules. > If referring to /usr/share/doc/perl/copyright isn't kosher then I > think we should just copy the licensing fragment from that file into > the copyright files that need it. That would at least give us less grounds on which to reject packages like this, but, personally, I do think there's a problem with this kind of "license" and (day-dreamingly) wish people weren't quite so keen to ostrich about it just because it affects a large number of packages :( -- James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
