Front page | perl.module-authors |
Postings from October 2008
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:13:24PM -0500, Ken Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:17 AM, David Cantrell <david@cantrell.org.uk> 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.
> I agree that the second point is a problem. I'd like to solve it by
> delegating to Software::License. Anything it knows about should be a
> valid choice.
All that does it make it Someone Elses Problem while still not solving
the problem. As an example, Software::License doesn't appear to know
about the Microsoft or Python licences.
PS - sorry you're getting this twice Ken. It's because you CCed me on
your post to the mailing list, so the copy sent directly to me arrived
first, so the copy from the list got thrown away. And it's the copy I
get from the list which goes through a procmail recipe to insert a
Reply-To header. Please don't CC me on mailing list messages in the
future.
--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence
Good advice is always certain to be ignored,
but that's no reason not to give it -- Agatha Christie
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next