Hi everyone: I notice this has been discussed quite a bit previously (though something like 18 months ago), and the general idea I have gathered from reading is that the Artistic License, version 2.0 is not yet popular enough to warrant inclusion in common-licenses.
As we're inching closer to Perl 6 actually being on the horizon, I think we should take another look at whether this license would be a good candidate for inclusion. Some modules (in particular one I'm working on right now, libtext-context-eitherside-perl) are explicitly licensed under Artistic-2.0. Moreover, if/when Perl 6 is completed, it's likely that lots of modules will choose to license themselves as "same terms as Perl itself", which, for Perl6 modules, would be the Artistic License 2.0. Even if it's not a common license per se, given the length of the document I think it'd be tremendously helpful to prevent duplication. This isn't a case of the BSD or MIT licenses where the license itself is only a few kilobytes. No, the Artistic License 2 is a rather heavy thing, 180 lines and weighing 9453 characters once I've got it wrapped and put in the appropriate format for debian/copyright. I think this is worth another look. As of right now it's not a *huge* issue, just feels like a papercut every time I come across a module licensed as Artistic-2.0 Cheers, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
