On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 11:16 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > To be fair, this page calls Artistic too vague to be qualified as free > (I > presume this means it's equally too vague to be qualified as > non-free). The FSF would disagree with you there, not to mention the recent US court case where the judge ruled that the Artistic 1.0 license was a contract, not a license, and the author of the software had none of the rights described in the Artistic 1.0 text. The judge was wrong, but the poorly written nature of Artistic 1.0 is the reason this happened. Its also the reason that Fedora is continuously trying to convince upstream to either dual license or relicense outright when we find Artistic 1.0 licenses. ~spot -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list Fedora-perl-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
