Bug #100523 for Statistics-Descriptive: Wrong license declaration in META

Mon Nov 24 08:29:47 2014 ppisar [...] redhat.com - Ticket created

Subject:

Wrong license declaration in META

3.0607 META.json as well as Build.PL states license as "perl". However lib/Statistics/Descriptive/Smoother.pm is covered by the MIT license. The same applies to t/lib/Utils.pm or examples/statistical-analysis.pl. I recommend to change the license declaration pro provide correct metadata.

Mon Nov 24 09:16:37 2014 SHLOMIF [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

Dear Mr. Pisar, On Mon Nov 24 08:29:47 2014, ppisar wrote: Show quoted text

> 3.0607 META.json as well as Build.PL states license as "perl". However > lib/Statistics/Descriptive/Smoother.pm is covered by the MIT license. > The same applies to t/lib/Utils.pm or examples/statistical- > analysis.pl. > > I recommend to change the license declaration pro provide correct > metadata.

The original licence of the S-D package was "Same terms as Perl". Later on after I adopted it, some new files were added under the X11 licence, which I found better. However, a lot of old code remains under the "Same Terms as Perl" which makes the global package licence as such. So I'm not going to change the META.json declaration to that and I would suggest you refrain from reporting bugs like that in open source packages, because this is just noise. Regards, -- Shlomi Fish

Mon Nov 24 09:16:38 2014 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

Mon Nov 24 09:39:03 2014 ppisar [...] redhat.com - Correspondence added

Subject:	Re: [rt.cpan.org #100523] Wrong license declaration in META
Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:38:51 +0100
To:	Shlomi Fish via RT <bug-Statistics-Descriptive [...] rt.cpan.org>
From:	Petr Pisar <ppisar [...] redhat.com>

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 09:16:38AM -0500, Shlomi Fish via RT wrote: Show quoted text

> So I'm not going to change the META.json declaration to that and I would > suggest you refrain from reporting bugs like that in open source packages, > because this is just noise. >

Well, maybe we could remove the license metadata at all if this is just a noise which misleading value everbody ignores. -- Petr

Download (untitled)
application/pgp-signature 213b

Message body not shown because it is not plain text.

Tue Nov 25 04:15:59 2014 SHLOMIF [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

Hi Petr, On Mon Nov 24 09:39:03 2014, ppisar wrote: Show quoted text

> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 09:16:38AM -0500, Shlomi Fish via RT wrote:

> > So I'm not going to change the META.json declaration to that and I would > > suggest you refrain from reporting bugs like that in open source packages, > > because this is just noise. > >

> Well, maybe we could remove the license metadata at all if this is just > a noise which misleading value everbody ignores. >

The global licence of the package is "Same terms as Perl" and most of the original and relevant code is that. Putting such a licence metadata is good practice (required by Kwalitee and preferred by MetaCPAN/etc.) and certainly is not "noise". What I meant is that reports like this bug report - that some source files in the package are under a different licence than the global package licence, are not constructive and a waste of the developers' time and so should be avoided. I hope you understand now. Regards, -- Shlomi Fish

Wed Dec 03 03:46:31 2014 SHLOMIF [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

On Tue Nov 25 04:15:59 2014, SHLOMIF wrote: Show quoted text

> Hi Petr, > > On Mon Nov 24 09:39:03 2014, ppisar wrote:

> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 09:16:38AM -0500, Shlomi Fish via RT wrote:

> > > So I'm not going to change the META.json declaration to that and I > > > would > > > suggest you refrain from reporting bugs like that in open source > > > packages, > > > because this is just noise. > > >

> > Well, maybe we could remove the license metadata at all if this is > > just > > a noise which misleading value everbody ignores. > >

> > The global licence of the package is "Same terms as Perl" and most of > the original and relevant code is that. Putting such a licence > metadata is good practice (required by Kwalitee and preferred by > MetaCPAN/etc.) and certainly is not "noise". > > What I meant is that reports like this bug report - that some source > files in the package are under a different licence than the global > package licence, are not constructive and a waste of the developers' > time and so should be avoided. I hope you understand now. >

Petr has not replied so I'm marking this bug as "rejected". Petr, please refrain from filing bugs like this one (= that some files inside a distribution are under a different licence than the global package licence) in the future. Regards, -- Shlomi Fish

Wed Dec 03 03:46:32 2014 SHLOMIF [...] cpan.org - Status changed from 'open' to 'rejected'