Hi all: I'm working on a module that will be released into the Public Domain. It contains some code that is, itself, in the public domain by another author.
There has been a lot of discussion on the implications of Public Domain software in places that do not have the notion of Public Domain, particularly on the Debian list about copyright law in Germany. What I did to get around this is provide a clause in the module like so: # All rights to this package are hereby disclaimed and its contents released # into the public domain by the author. Where this is not possible, you may # use this file under the same terms as Perl itself. So it's released into the public domain, but also the Perl license (Artistic + GPL) to get around this problem. I have chosen thus far to reflect this in the Build.PL as: license => 'unrestricted' (ie, unrestricted distribution). What I am wondering is- is this the most appropriate license clause to use? Should I link to the Perl licensing terms for the META.yml (ie, http://dev.perl.org/licenses/) OR should I keep my current link of a paper studying public domain software (http://edwardsamuels.com/copyright/beyond/articles/public.html) Thanks in advance for your guidance :-) Cheers, Jonathan Yu (PAUSE: FREQUENCY)
