42 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
42 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
|
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
|
||
|
|
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
|
||
|
|
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
|
||
|
|
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
|
||
|
|
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
|
||
|
|
jplesnik@redhat.com
|
||
|
|
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||
|
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
|
||
|
|
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Sent from my Sprint phone
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
>Marc, Tom,
|
||
|
|
>
|
||
|
|
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and
|
||
|
|
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
|
||
|
|
>the Artistic license (only).
|
||
|
|
>
|
||
|
|
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
|
||
|
|
>FSF [0]. Unless the license of this core component changes, we
|
||
|
|
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
|
||
|
|
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
|
||
|
|
>or Module::Install.
|
||
|
|
>
|
||
|
|
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
|
||
|
|
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
|
||
|
|
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
|
||
|
|
>an FSF free license. Is it possible this is also the case
|
||
|
|
>of Pod::Html?
|
||
|
|
>
|
||
|
|
>Thanks,
|
||
|
|
>Petr
|
||
|
|
>
|
||
|
|
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
|
||
|
|
>
|
||
|
|
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
|
||
|
|
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense
|