Closed nobodywasishere closed 2 years ago
The weird licensing is because this package was originally forked from someone else who forked in from Perl. I've added more details to the LICENSE file.
I don't think there is any easy justification for me to be able to change their license, it just depends on how much you believe this to count as a full rewrite. I've also added MIT license for everything I did now.
Does Artistic 1.0 cause any specific problems to you?
Thank you. The extra information and clarification helps a lot. I appreciate it.
Looking at a pure diff between the two, only 12 lines of code are exactly the same. I would consider it a full rewrite, but I'm not a lawyer, though I dont think you would come into much opposition considering it a rewrite.
The Perl license is technically both the Artistic License and GPLv1+. As this is not clearly shown (and old), I would recommend updating the license of the repo to GPLv2+ explicitly, so that people using the repo know the proper licensing.