On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 17:49 -0700, Steven Pritchard wrote: > Author: steve > > Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Locale-Maketext-Simple/FC-4 > In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv6828 > > Modified Files: > .cvsignore perl-Locale-Maketext-Simple.spec sources > Log Message: > Update to 0.16. > License has changed to MIT. Steve, do you think upstream is legitimated to do so? I am facing the same situation with perl-Locale-Maketext-Lexicon (from the same author). There, upstream has changed the license from GPL/Artistic to MIT. IMO, by having done so, upstream probably has violated the law, because, in general, they cannot change the license a package unless they own the copyright of all parts a package consists of. Locale::Maketext::Simple only lists one author, with Locale::Maketext::Lexicon, the situation seems unclear: http://search.cpan.org/src/AUTRIJUS/Locale-Maketext-Lexicon-0.61/AUTHORS lists 20-25 contributors, while the source code only lists one individual (the CPAN maintainer). I am not certain on how to handle the situation. To be on the safe side, I considering to regard my perl-Locale-Maketext-Lexicon rpm as derivative work of the original work and consider to ship it under the GPL only. The fundamental questions would be: * Who owns contributions to code in CPAN having been released under GPL/Artistic before? IMO: If the "contribution is copyrightable", the contributor. He is contributing under the licenses the original author had granted. The original author is not legitimated to change the license on such contributions without explicit permission. * Is the maintainer of CPAN modules legitimated to change a license from GPL/Artistic to MIT? Here, I am not sure about the implications of the Artistic license. Opinions? What to do? Ralf
