<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 14 July 2010 13:46, Andrew Chilton <span dir="ltr"></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Just one note I thought I'd ask about is that in the LICENSE file it's<br>
under the GPLv1 or later or the Artistic license. Ignoring the<br>
arguments about whether to dual license, wouldn't it be worth<br>
upgrading to at least GPLv2 if not GPLv3. Appreciating the fact that<br>
we can do that ourselves is already allowed, I would have still<br>
thought putting it out under a newer than GPLv1 license would make<br>
more sense for you :)<br>
<br></blockquote><div>Hi Alex<br><br>I know it sounds bad, but I don't really know the difference between the various Open Source licenses, and I glaze over when people try to explain them to me, so I'm happy to use whatever people think best. So do I still want the Dual License or just one of the GPL ones? Is 2 or 3 better?<br>
<br>Alas, I'll need to change the copyright in each package. I know Dist::Zilla is supposed to be able to help out with automatically adding licenses to files, but I haven't had time to look into it. So if someone needs a topic to present at the next mongers....<br>
</div></div>