Minor license ambiguity/discrepancy

[kentfredric]

I get the overall impression the idea was to license this under the same terms as perl, but the way its written in some of the documentation suggests a much weaker / more restricted license set.

These two indicate only Artistic or GPL ( Which may imply GPL-1 only )

Debug-Client/README

Lines 53 to 55 in 01b8437

	This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
	under the terms of either: the GNU General Public License as published
	by the Free Software Foundation; or the Artistic License.

Debug-Client/README.md

Lines 57 to 59 in 01b8437

	This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
	under the terms of either: the GNU General Public License as published
	by the Free Software Foundation; or the Artistic License.

While this indicates the same as perl ( Artistic or GPL-1-or-any-newer-version )

Debug-Client/lib/Debug/Client.pm

Lines 1116 to 1118 in 01b8437

	This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
	modify it under the same terms as Perl 5 itself.

I think the best option here is just to fix the readme, either to use the same phrasing as mentioned in the .pm file, or using the same phrasing as used at https://dev.perl.org/licenses/

 It is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either:

a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version, or

b) the "Artistic License". 

( the important aspect here is the explicit qualification of GPL-1-or-newer as opposed to the ambiguous "GPL" )

[szabgab]

sure, could you please send the PR?