it is pretty obvious why those files are artistic licence. it is the perl licence. its quite possible josh modified someone elses files.
how can you call GPL "compatible" when GPL is not even compatible with GPL? (see above proof)
those "discussions" are all either
(a) "GPL GPL GPL" (see the above proof about GPL), or
(b) nonsense about the irrelevant question of "disclaiming copyright".
(c) nonsense about needing a free software operators "licence".
seems legit.
competitors taking advantage?
jesus! is this what "free" now means?
we cant let other people "take advantage" by running their own spam eating services?
possibly services that include, GOD FORBID, code under a DIFFERENT VERSION of the SAME "FREE" LICENCE! (GASP!)
"copyright NAME, no rights reserved" is
* nice, short, clean
* obviously the opposite of "all rights reserved"
* obviously not trying to disclaim copyright
* okay. you asked for it. here you go.
__________________
| YOUR NAME HERE |
| LICENSED SOFT- |
| WARE OPERATOR |
------------------
if you dont believe me, how about DANIEL J BERNSTEIN, the guy who won the "publishing source code is a first amendment protected right" case against the US? against. the. U.S. he licked 'em good!
https://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.htmlhttps://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
sometime ago, i stopt using SG ``because i wasnt getting any spam.'' what an idiot!