I found this, even though it is not of much help in determining the
case Dave pointed.
######################
Licensing
Get your license policy clear from day one. No, day minus one. In this
day and age it is very important that every piece of software gets
clearly marked as to what license it carries. Build your module
packaging tools so that they suggest, maybe even demand that the
author picks a license. This way both the users of modules and
distributors of software wanting to include the module don't have to
keep guessing.
Very much related to the licensing is of course commercial use: CPAN
took the easy and clear policy of no commercial software of any kind,
not even share/guilt/donateware would be allowed. We felt that any
other policy would be open to nitpicking, or maybe even legal
challenges, and as a volunteer group we do not have time or other
resources for any of that.
######################
This is from: The Zen of Comprehensive Archive Networks
http://www.cpan.org/misc/ZCAN.html
signed by Jarkko.
The main point is to avoid challenges a volunteer group can't reply
to. That is why it almost implies the need for an approved open-source
license.
My 0.0000002 cents.
Adriano Ferreira.
On 2/16/07, Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://search.cpan.org/dist/PerlBuildSystem/licence.txt
I don't know the exact rules of CPAN regarding non-free licenses, so I'm
not sure if this should be pulled. Unlike the Bantown license, it probably
doesn't prevent CPAN from distributing it. OTOH, if there were a mirror at
a .mil address, this could get tricky.
Just a heads up.
-dave
/*===================================================
VegGuide.Org www.BookIRead.com
Your guide to all that's veg. My book blog
===================================================*/
