Rob Myers wrote: > email@greglondon.com wrote: > > someone did mention the QPL license earlier. > > I looked at it, but my concern is that it > > uses the word "software" everywhere. > > If the license isn't copyrighted, > just search & replace. I just checked. QPL is copy/distribute/no-modify. > Or define "the software" to be your document. uh, I didn't know you could do that. I don't like redefining a word to mean something else. reminds me too much of Humpty Dumpty. But if it's legally acceptable, then that would work. there wouldn't happen to be a lawyer on the list, would there? > > as far as Artistic License goes, it has the same > > problems by refering to "software". Plus, isn't it > > pretty much agreed that it's a shaky license? > > I know they're intending on rewriting it for Perl 6. > > There's a revised artistic license available > that addresses the concerns > IIRC. ah, new information. I thought it was coming out with perl 6, which is a year or two before it sees the light of day. I'll look into it. Thanks, Greg London -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3