[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Perl modules dual licensing (was Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks lice
From: |
Giovanni Biscuolo |
Subject: |
Perl modules dual licensing (was Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?) |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:24:37 +0100 |
Hi zimoun
zimoun <address@hidden> writes:
[...]
> Where is the License of Perl 5 and below explicitly defined? There is
> no pointer...
Ricardo pointed you to https://dev.perl.org/licenses/, that is a web
version of this
https://perl5.git.perl.org/perl5.git/blob/HEAD:/README
Perl is dual licensed at least since 1994-10-17 (see the README history
[1]
> What I understand is: when the License of Perl 5
There is no "License of Perl 5", it is Perl 5 that is dual licensed
The same dual license scheme is usually (usually?!?) adopted by Perl
modules, at least those on CPAN
http://www.cpan.org/misc/cpan-faq.html#How_is_Perl_licensed
> and below is used, then the copyright holder chooses either the
> Artistic 1.0, either the GPL. Then the License of Perl 5 and below is
> free but non-copyleft.
Since there is no "License of Perl 5" that license cannot be qualified
:-)
> Well, it appears to me a hack. I guess that there is a lot of Perl
> packages under Artistic 1.0 which seems an issue.
I don't know how many packages/modules are distributed only using
Artistic License 1.0, but please consider that as I said above that
*many* are dual licensed.
The fact that Perl modules are (must?) commonly dual licensed is
somewhat a mystery to me, but I do not care :-D
> So let create this License of Perl 5 and below saying: choose between
> Artistic 1.0 or GPL. And because you have this choice, everything is
> fine.
>
> I probably misread
No, you do not misread: dual licensing is used in many situation and is
non a "hack", it's the decision of the copyright holder to allow
different legal uses of the software
In this particular case, **fortunately** the dual licensing was adopted
"since the beginning" to fix the problems with Artistic License
[...]
Last things about names: since Oct 2019 [2] Perl 5 is Perl (Perl 4 is
gone long ago) and Perl 6 is Raku, so finally there is no more need to
say "Perl 5" :-)
Ciao! Gio'
[1] https://perl5.git.perl.org/perl5.git/history/HEAD:/README
[2] https://lwn.net/Articles/802329/
--
Giovanni Biscuolo
Xelera IT Infrastructures
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, (continued)
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, zimoun, 2019/12/19
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2019/12/19
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, zimoun, 2019/12/19
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2019/12/20
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, zimoun, 2019/12/20
- Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2019/12/20
- Guix and Bioconductor., Giovanni Biscuolo, 2019/12/20
- Re: Guix and Bioconductor., Ricardo Wurmus, 2019/12/20
- [OT] Re: Guix and Bioconductor., Giovanni Biscuolo, 2019/12/21
Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?, zimoun, 2019/12/19
- Perl modules dual licensing (was Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?),
Giovanni Biscuolo <=