Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!

FS#21167 - [licenses] Add Artistic 2.0

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Shira K (Shirakawasuna) - Sunday, 10 October 2010, 01:34 GMT
Last edited by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Thursday, 17 March 2011, 17:12 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Dan McGee (toofishes)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No



The Perl Artistic License 1.0 is already in the common licenses, but not 2.0. I'm requesting the same as the following feature request, but for version 2.0

I think this is a fairly common license and the OSI recommends updating Artistic License 1.0 projects to 2.0.

This task depends upon

Closed by  Dan McGee (toofishes)
Thursday, 17 March 2011, 17:12 GMT
Reason for closing:  Implemented
Additional comments about closing:  2.7 in testing, as "Artistic2.0"
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Sunday, 10 October 2010, 13:40 GMT
Example of packages needing it or using it *already*?
Comment by Kevin (anonymous_user) - Sunday, 10 October 2010, 16:13 GMT
Parrot uses it. And the package page for it needs to be changed to reflect that. Currently its stated as using GPL.
Comment by Shira K (Shirakawasuna) - Sunday, 10 October 2010, 18:44 GMT
A non-exhaustive list:

community: ack, parrot, pv, sawfish, perl-datetime. Many perl-related packages in general.

aur:rakudo, perl-regexp-common, perl-package-deprecationmanager, perl-exception-class, all the bioconductor packages (e.g. r-biobase). Many perl-related packages in general.

When these packages do reference the Perl Artistic License, they inaccurately reference version 1.0 rather than 2.0.

Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Thursday, 17 March 2011, 16:12 GMT
Link to a downloadable text version of this?
Comment by Kevin (anonymous_user) - Thursday, 17 March 2011, 16:21 GMT