Re: LICENSE in lang/perl5/Makefile

["Johnny C. Lam" <jlam%pkgsrc.org@localhost>]

Greg Troxel wrote:
> "Johnny C. Lam" <jlam%pkgsrc.org@localhost> writes:
>
> > Greg Troxel wrote:
> > > It may be that we should add licenses/perl-license (perhaps just
> > > referring to permission to copy under either gpl2 or artistic) and add
> > > perl-license to DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENESES in license.mk.
> > Yes, I think this is probably best.  I think "artistic-license" is the
> > better name, especially as I've seen other software projects using
> > this license.
>
> I meant to add the file artistic-license, and then to add perl-license
> that explains dual licensing under GPL and artistic, and then tag perl
> with perl-license.  But just tagging with artistic sounds fine.

Right, this is one way to handle "AND" licensing requirements (as 
opposed to "OR" or alternative licensing requirements).  My initial 
thoughts on this approach are that it doesn't seem scalable, but perhaps 
the number of such packages isn't very large.  In the work you did to 
sweep pkgsrc to add LICENSE definitions to package Makefiles, what was 
the impression you had for the number of these types of packages?

        Cheers,

        -- Johnny C. Lam