Audrey recently decided to license Pugs under the SQLite non-license. As I understand it, this is effectively a public domain license, where the author disclaims copyright. (At least, this is my understanding of Audrey's intent.)
I have contributed code to Pugs in at least four languages (Perl 5, Perl 6, Haskell, and make). I contributed that code under the existing license -- the combination of the Artistic License and the GPL v2. I did not contribute that code to the public domain and I do not intend to.
I support the right of any author of any creative work to license that work as he or she sees fit. That includes the public domain. Yet that also means that I believe I have the right not to relicense the code I contributed.
So, I don't. All code I have contributed to Pugs remains under the Artistic/GPL combination and I retain the copyright. If the Pugs project would like to use that code or redistribute that code, it may, but not under any other license terms.
It should be a small project for an interested Pugs hacker to find all of my contributions and remove or reimplement them -- at least a smaller project than convincing me to change the license. If that is what the members of the Pugs project want to do, I support their efforts.
(Please direct all questions about the Artistic License v. 2, its purpose, its goals, and its practical effects to the Perl 6 Licenses mailing list. I do not have any desire to discuss them here. Please note that I am also explicitly not making a statement of any sort about Pugs beyond the licensing of the code I created and have contributed.)