[arch-dev-public] [signoff] licenses 2.7-1

[Dan McGee]

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.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>
> 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).

Because
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

-Dan