www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Artistic/Perl license
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:24:21 GMT
   [ http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html ]

The two conditions that jump out to me as objectionable are clauses 3 and
4. In both cases the licensee chooses from amongst a set of options.

Condition 3c is the most 'attractive' within clause 3:

c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict
    with standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide
    a separate manual page for each non-standard executable that clearly
    documents how it differs from the Standard Version.


Executable is undefined, leaving us to either take it to mean an actual
binary executable (which most things licensed under the Artistic Perl do
not have), or just to treat it as 'file'. Taking it as file, it's a naming
requirement not to use the same name for a file when modifying, requirement
to supply the original source and a requirement for documenting changes
(which Apache 2.0 contains as well).

Condition 4c is the same clause within clause 4. Given most items licensed
under Artistic Perl are distributed as source (or 'machine-readable
source'), Condition 4b will often be complied with automatically.

So I think this comes down to whether or not we consider the 3(c) condition
to be an issue or not. I think in LEGAL-64 I was harsh to describe it as a
weak-copyleft (3(a) affects licensing of modifications, ie: that
weak-copyleft, but 3(c) gives you an option that is not to do with
licensing and more concerned with maintaining trademarks).

Hen


On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org> wrote:

> It's come up a couple of times, LEGAL-64 and LEGAL-86, but it never
> got categorized.
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org>
> wrote:
> > Roman Shaposhnik wrote on 9/19/16 10:05 PM:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I've always thought that Artistic/Perl license isn't
> >> compatible with ALv2. But when I went and checked
> >> I couldn't find it on the Cat X list:
> >>    http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> >> in fact I couldn't find it at all on that page (aside from
> >> an exception for auto-generated header files).
> >>
> >> Am I misremembering it being on Cat X list?
> >
> > Has an Apache  PMC asked to use it?  We historically only add to the
> > lists when a project asks to use a specific license.  But yes, I'd agree
> > it seems Cat X.
> >
> > - Shane
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message