On Thursday 19 March 2009 18:23:23 Jonathan Yu wrote: > Hi Shlomi, > > I've looked into the CC0 license that Scott mentioned, and it looks > promising. > > I wonder if it is legally permissible to provide use of the code under > several licenses, ie: > > 1. GPL (should it be GPL 2+ only?) > 2. Artistic 2.0+
That should probably be "Artistic 1.0" and then "Artistic 2.0+". But see below. > 3. Public Domain > 4. CC0 > 5. MIT > 6. BSD > > Basically I want this code to be as free as possible, and I don't much > care what people do with it. > You can license your code under as many licenses as you please. For example, jQuery ( http://jquery.com/ ) is dually licensed MITL and GPL, and cURL ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CURL ) used to be dually licensed MITL and MPL (= Mozilla Public Licence). However, if you already decided to license under the MIT/X11 Licence it is completely unnecessary to license it under any other licence (except perhaps the Public Domain) because the MITL specifically allows sub-licensing. Sub-licensing allows anyone to take your MITL work and convert their copy into code of a different licence, free or non-free. So my suggestion is to licence your code under "Public Domain", "CC0" and "MIT", and avoid the rest of the options, which will only be confusing. > Dominique's reference to Wikipedia's Public Domain text might be > useful, too. Is it easier to do that? > > And this all still leaves the question, what do I do for META.yml's > license field, and Build.PL's license part? > Just say 'mit'. It's supported by later M::B's. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ My Aphorisms - http://www.shlomifish.org/humour.html God gave us two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we read.
