From Fedora Project Wiki
I'm helping to audit Fedora for license compliance, and we've come across a slight issue with $NAME (packaged as "$PACKAGENAME" in Fedora): The license seems to be "Artistic 1.0", which is problematic for Fedora. Why? 1. The FSF says it isn't free. They say that the text is vague, and that it is open to misinterpretation. 2. The perl community agrees with this assessment. They went so far as to rewrite the Artistic license to resolve all the identified problems (see http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0). 3. The Artistic License (1.0) recently went to trial in the US and lost. The judge interpreted it in a very negative way, and that worries me. (http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-open-source-legal-decision-jacobsen.html) So, basically, what I'm asking is: Would you be willing to either: A. Dual license $NAME as GPL+ and Artistic (aka, same license as perl) or B. Re-license $NAME as Artistic 2.0 (or any other license found on Fedora's "Good License" List: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#GoodSoftwareLicenses ) Thanks,