[arch-dev-public] [signoff] licenses 2.7-1
dpmcgee at gmail.com
Thu Mar 17 17:51:38 EDT 2011
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Added Perl Artistic 2.0 (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/21167),
>> dropped RALINK as it isn't in use anymore.
> Is there any reason why the Perl Artistic 2.0 license is installed in
> a Artistic2.0 directory? Wouldn't it be more logical to have it in a
> PerlArtistic2.0 directory as we already have a PerlArtistic directory
> containing version 1 of the license?
> In case this is just nit picking, then consider this my signoff (on x86_64).
1) no one calls it "The Perl Artistic License"; it is just "The
Artistic License", look at the top of the file
2) Every package using it already in some form just calls it Artistic
or Artistic 2.0 or something
More information about the arch-dev-public