Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shlomi Fish): > On Thursday 30 October 2008, David Cantrell wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:13:24PM -0500, Ken Williams wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:17 AM, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > So, in summary, here's my objections to the > > > > current 'license' field in META.yml: > > > > * poorly documented; > > > > * limited range of options for licences; > > > > * only one licence per distribution > > > > The first is fixable so I'm not too bothered by it. The second and > > > > third are fundamental design flaws which make it unfit for purpose. > > > > > > Your proposal doesn't seem to address the second point in any way. > > > > That's the bit where I suggest instead of saying, eg, "frobnitz" to mean > > "the Frobnitz licence" you say "frobnitz" to mean "the licence whose text > > is in the 'frobnitz' file". That would allow the author to use any licence > > he wants. > > This seems like the road to chaos. Imagine I put "mit" there and mit.txt > contains the text of the GPLv3. I think we should have unique identifiers for > every licence, and expand them to encompass more licences if necessary, then > allow such inconsistent behaviour.
Having the full text of the licences available in the distribution seems like a good idea, though. How about making it so that 'make dist'/'Build dist' creates the files with appropriate contents if they don't exist, and throws an error if they do but with the wrong contents? Then a version of Software::Licence with the correct licence in is only needed on the developer machine. Ben
