I'm interested in hard problems.
Recently, I've started thinking a lot about what CP6AN might look like.
Class::MOP and the Perl 6 Metamodel make me more excited than I'd like to admit.
Also expect occasional wordy technology-related rantings.
If I do not use "the same terms as Perl itself", would that prevent you from using my code (especially CPAN modules)? Contributing to it? Distributing it? (EDIT: Not so much from a legal basis as if you'd decide "I don't want to have to figure out the legal crap here" and just give up. ENDIT)
This thread on the LKML is fascinating. Let's put aside discussions of the GPLv3 for a second and look at another argument Linus made in that thread, that the "or any later version" clause essentially means that you're agreeing to license your code under the terms of a license you haven't seen. I buy his argument, and so I'm trying to figure out how to license further code I work on.
Now, previously, when licensing FOSS Perl stuff I've written, I've used "the terms of Perl itself", nice, easy, and license-compatible with most other Perl stuff.
Well, the terms of Perl itself include the "or (at your option) any later version" clause. (The version of the GPL they specify is also Version 1, which I'm not actually sure I've read.)
So ideally what I'd like to do is license my code under the Artistic License 1.0 (or whatever the canonical name is for the current Artistic License) or the GPLv2.
Would this cause problems for others?
Because ultimately, if it will, I might decide that contributing code that people can use is more important than the rest of this licensing stuff. I welcome your input.
Please note that I'm not asking for legal advice. I'm asking about how
your actions would be influenced.
Also note that if I were to contribute to someone else's project, I would most likely license my code under whatever terms they had chosen to license their code.