Re^9: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_License; the original version is not an FSF-recognized free software license, there are some ambiguities which are corrected in the Clarified Artistic License and the Artistic License 2.0.

Comment on Re^9: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^10: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks by Will_the_Chill (Pilgrim) on Dec 04, 2013 at 07:49 UTC
ysth, I'm want to make RPerl available under the same terms as Perl itself so that RPerl and Perl source code can be mixed without worrying about what license applies to what. Does that make sense? Also, I want to write a 1 or 2 sentence explanation of how the RPerl license affects end-users, as I have already attempted to do in the RPerl FAQ. Can you please give me guidance on what you think would be accurate wording? Thanks! Perling, ~ Will	[reply]
Re^10: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks by Will_the_Chill (Pilgrim) on Dec 04, 2013 at 07:52 UTC
Also, it seems like there is some disagreement about whether a "Perl" project (like RPerl) should be licensed under Artistic v1 or Artistic v2. Can you give me input on that please?	[reply]
Re^11: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks by ysth (Canon) on Dec 05, 2013 at 07:20 UTC
If you are free to choose, that is, if you are not dependent on code that can't be relicensed, absolutely go for v2. -- A math joke: r = \| \|csc(θ)\|+\|sec(θ)\| \|-\| \|csc(θ)\|-\|sec(θ)\| \|	[reply]
Re^12: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks by Will_the_Chill (Pilgrim) on Dec 10, 2013 at 07:51 UTC
ysth, RPerl does specifically do #include "perl.h" to work correctly, I assume this means I am dependent on Artistic v1 code and thus can't use Artistic v2? Thanks, ~ Will	[reply]