from Artistic 2 licensing because of Artistic 2 compilation copyright
licensing conflicts between inclusion of Pugs source into Perl6/Artistic2
and Pugs's inclusion of LGPL code in its source tree.
It sounds like the motivation behind Artistic 2 is benevolent. But Audrey
specifically mentions compilation copyrights. I don't understand the
implications of how compilation copyrights pan out with respect to the
Artistic 2 license, the Perl 6 distribution as a whole, and the
inclusion of 3rd party contributions using public domain or different
copyleft licenses.
Q1: Could you explain why the inclusion of LGPL code into an otherwise
Artistic2 source tree is legally dangerous?
Q2: Does a compilation copyright exist if it isn't asserted or registered?
Q3: Why does TPF or any open source project need a "compilation
copyright"? I.e. why aren't the copyrights on the contributed works
enough?
On the perl6-internals list back in October 2005, Allision Randal wrote:
So, with Perl 5, Larry is the compilation owner. The problem with that
is it makes Larry personally liable for any action brought against
Perl
Q4: Where is Larry attributed as the compilation owner?So, with Perl 5, Larry is the compilation owner. The problem with that
is it makes Larry personally liable for any action brought against
Perl
Q5: What legal liabilites would contributors be protected from if TPF
holds compilation copyrights for Perl?
Q6: How well are contribution copyrights respected internationally?
cheers,
Garrett