If I do not use "the same terms as Perl itself", would that prevent you from using my code (especially CPAN modules)? Contributing to it? Distributing it? (EDIT: Not so much from a legal basis as if you'd decide "I don't want to have to figure out the legal crap here" and just give up. ENDIT)
This thread on the LKML is fascinating. Let's put aside discussions of the GPLv3 for a second and look at another argument Linus made in that thread, that the "or any later version" clause essentially means that you're agreeing to license your code under the terms of a license you haven't seen. I buy his argument, and so I'm trying to figure out how to license further code I work on.
Now, previously, when licensing FOSS Perl stuff I've written, I've used "the terms of Perl itself", nice, easy, and license-compatible with most other Perl stuff.
Well, the terms of Perl itself include the "or (at your option) any later version" clause. (The version of the GPL they specify is also Version 1, which I'm not actually sure I've read.)
The "terms of Perl itself" might also change, to use the Artistic License 2.0 though I haven't kept up with the discussion on that front.
So ideally what I'd like to do is license my code under the Artistic License 1.0 (or whatever the canonical name is for the current Artistic License) or the GPLv2.
Would this cause problems for others?
Because ultimately, if it will, I might decide that contributing code that people can use is more important than the rest of this licensing stuff. I welcome your input.
---Please note that I'm not asking for legal advice. I'm asking about how
your actions would be influenced.
Also note that if I were to contribute to someone else's project, I would
most likely license my code under whatever terms they had chosen to
license their code.
I have no idea what Linus means, as I don't follow that discussion, but I do interpret the phrase in Perl's license as "whatever changes in Perl's license, you're free to choose the version you like best".Well, the terms of Perl itself include the "or (at your option) any later version" clause.
Re:It's not like that for Perl -- I think
DAxelrod on 2006-10-10T20:24:07
Except the "you" who is free to choose is the user, not the author.Re:It's not like that for Perl -- I think
bart on 2006-10-10T20:57:39
Well, that's what I meant. Wasn't that clear?
What I ment was that you as a user are free to upgrade any module you used before because the license that it comes under can't ever get worse for you, as you're free to choose which one applies.Re:It's not like that for Perl -- I think
DAxelrod on 2006-10-10T21:20:16
My appologies. What I was trying to say is that the user might be free to choose a license I disagree with (how would I know, I'm giving them the right to choose anything the FSF ever calls the GPL).
Re:What do you want to do?
DAxelrod on 2006-10-10T20:26:34
Right.
My primary goal is to make a contribution. That means that I want people to be able to use, learn from, contribute to, and improve on my code.
That said, I'm not particularly happy on giving somebody the right to license my code under terms I haven't even read because they don't exist yet.Re:What do you want to do?
DAxelrod on 2006-10-10T20:28:11
And this isn't a question about which license I should use. I wouldn't be asking that on use.perl. I simply want to know how a particular choice of license would affect others.Re:What do you want to do?
Aristotle on 2006-10-11T03:16:40
Some concerns:
If you plan on having your code go into core, then providing it under a licence different from that of Perl is going to be a serious issue.
If you want to avoid burdening commercial users of your code, you should stay close to the pack, because some of them will have to have everything vetted by the legal dept. before they can use it. The less new text you introduce, the more likely that will succeed.
Re:What do you want to do?
DAxelrod on 2006-10-11T18:31:40
If I were to write anything that was considered for inclusion into the core, I would be happy to relicense it under "the same terms as Perl itself". Most modules IIRC don't go into core without other revamping as well, so it would be the perfect opportunity for a relicense.
The "avoid burdening users" thing is exactly what I'm trying to figure out. Commercial users have to get everything vetted by their legal department, but a ton of people don't even have a legal department to check things with. I'm trying to figure out if saying GPLv2 or Artistic v1 is going to make them say "I'm not gonna figure this out, forget it".
