Being in the Perl community from where the Artistic licenses originate, I assume the original intent was version 1.0, which is why the statement is unqualified.
It was.
That being said, I recommend that the copyright holder explicitly license it under the Artistic 2.0, which is a much better version of the license, having the same intent but being much more clear and legally solid.
And I have,.
Thanks!
-- Darren Duncan
On 2018-10-14 1:13 PM, Christoph Berg wrote: > Hi, > > the Debian ftp masters pointed out that the pldebugger license is > ambiguous: The source code states this: > > Licence > ------- > > The pl/pgsql debugger API is released under the Artistic Licence. > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php > > Copyright (c) 2004-2017 EnterpriseDB Corporation. All Rights Reserved. > > ... but the link to opensource.org (now) points to a disambiguation > page to choose between version 1.0 and 2.0 of the license. > > Could you clarify which of the two you want there? (Or maybe a > combination like "1.0, or any later version".) > > Thanks, > Christoph > >
