On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 17:23 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
While we still need to handle cases like this, in the particular
case
of "(GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic)", isn't it rather
pointless? GPLv2+ or Artistic is a subset of GPL+ or Artistic. Why
is there any need to complicate the license tag like this? It seems
as silly as saying GPL+ or GPLv2+ or GPLv3+.
I think I must be missing something peculiar and historic about the
Perl license
The Fedora perl package is derived from the upstream perl tarball. That
tarball is a "meta" tarball, containing not just base perl, but also
some perl modules which perl upstream has deemed for various reasons
(good, bad, otherwise) to be included as well. One of these addon
modules is explicitly licensed as GPLv2+ or Artistic. The rest of the
modules (and base perl) are GPL+ or Artistic. Thus, the unique
licensing.
~spot