(This is a carryover from the p5p list.)
I do not think we should encourage ANY specific licensing terms for CPAN
content, except that it should be an open source license of some kind.
Bradley Kuhn wrote:
>However, the Artistic license isn't legally sound enough to hold water
>as a free software license by itself. Larry even noted that it isn't
>intended for use on its own.
I disagree entirely. First, I don't think there is such a thing as legally
holding water as a free software license. :-) It seems to me that assumes
there is a such a legally defined thing as a free software license. I am
not sure what that statement even means. Does it mean that it does not
allow people to use the software? If that is what you mean, I disagree.
If you mean something else, well, then I don't think it matters.
As to picking another license, like the MIT: I honestly don't care. I am
not here to say the AL should be the license of choice. I am here to say
it is acceptable. However, I like the AL and will stick with it (though I
wouldn't mind minor changes to it for clarifications).
One more thing, Bradley Kuhn wrote this:
>Yet, we have documentation in the core and software on CPAN that is
>Artistic-only, and thus isn't known to be free documentation/free
>software.
That is patently false. Even Bruce Perens says that AL-licensed software
is open source (though with heavy reservations, of course). Everything I
write on my own is AL-only, and is free software, in every definition of
the phrase, including RMS' definitions.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
