[Wellington-pm] Meeting Tonight

[Dan Horne]

On 14 July 2010 13:46, Andrew Chilton  wrote:

>
> Just one note I thought I'd ask about is that in the LICENSE file it's
> under the GPLv1 or later or the Artistic license. Ignoring the
> arguments about whether to dual license, wouldn't it be worth
> upgrading to at least GPLv2 if not GPLv3. Appreciating the fact that
> we can do that ourselves is already allowed, I would have still
> thought putting it out under a newer than GPLv1 license would make
> more sense for you :)
>
> Hi Alex

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?

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....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/wellington-pm/attachments/20100714/49f25ac2/attachment.html>