From: Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, David Nicol wrote: > > > On 2/21/07, Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Insisting on _a_ license is actually a really good idea. Absent an > >> explicit license, CPAN does not have the right to redistribute the > >> software, nor do mirrors. > > > > that's nonsense. CPAN is equipment, it is not an actor with moral > > compass. > > I'm not sure what you mean by equipment. CPAN's equipment is owned by > people, corporations, and other institutions. These are all legal > entities that can be said to be distributing software uploaded via > PAUSE. Just because that distribution is automated via code does not > automatically absolve them of responsibility.
Well that's a question. CPAN is a distributed archive, a single entity hosted on many computers around the world. So copying something from one mirror to another does not IMHO equate distribution any more than copying from one box in a webserver cluster to another does. Similarily if I use a computer that belongs to an ISP to host my website do I "distribute" a module if I upload it to my directory there so that my scripts can use it? I think not! Even though the computer belongs to someone else. > Moreover, that still doesn't address the issue of end-user usability. > If a a piece of software is basically unusable by anyone, because the > license is gibberish (ala PerlBuildSystem), then why shouldn't CPAN > remove it? There's no reason we shouldn't enforce some _minimal_ > community standards here. CPAN is a service provided by people for > free, and they have no obligation to host anything one could upload. Agreed here. Jenda ===== [EMAIL PROTECTED] === http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz ===== When it comes to wine, women and song, wizards are allowed to get drunk and croon as much as they like. -- Terry Pratchett in Sourcery
