Far from simplifying matters, I think that having each CPAN author 'clarify' their licensing position is only going to make things more confusing.
The current situation is that Perl can be used under either the GPL or the Artistic license. A user can evaluate those licenses (which come with Perl) and make their own decision on whether they are happy to use Perl under those terms.
A CPAN module is effectively an extension to Perl. If the module contains a clear statement that it is licensed under the same terms as Perl itself then the user does not need to make another decision. They have already decided Perl's licensing terms are acceptable. They can see that the module they want to use is licensed under the same terms and they can carry on.
On the other hand, if each module author 'clarified' their licensing position by re-stating Perl's licensing terms then a user would need to read that statement and any accompanying license files and repeat the decision making process. The more words that a module author uses to clarify things, the more chance there is of making a mistake or introducing an inconsistency.
I'm not saying that every CPAN module should have the exact same licensing terms - authors should continue to have the freedom to choose. But, if they choose to use 'the same terms as Perl itself' then they are saying to a potential user "don't worry about the license - you already made your decision about Perl's license and this is the same".
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Licensing of Perl Modules
by grantm
in thread Licensing of Perl Modules
by dondelelcaro
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |