Bug #102714 for DBI: Non-free license for DBI::FAQ

Thu Mar 12 04:50:41 2015 jplesnik [...] redhat.com - Ticket created

Subject:

Non-free license for DBI::FAQ

DBI::FAQ (lib/DBI/FAQ.pm) contains the following copyright notice: ### This document is Copyright (c)1994-2000 Alligator Descartes, with portions ### Copyright (c)1994-2000 their original authors. This module is released under ### the 'Artistic' license which you can find in the perl distribution. This is not a FSF free license. If possible, could you please re-license this file under a FSF free license.

Thu Mar 12 14:48:20 2015 SREZIC [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

On 2015-03-12 04:50:41, jplesnik wrote: Show quoted text

> DBI::FAQ (lib/DBI/FAQ.pm) contains the following copyright notice: > > ### This document is Copyright (c)1994-2000 Alligator Descartes, with > portions > ### Copyright (c)1994-2000 their original authors. This module is > released under > ### the 'Artistic' license which you can find in the perl > distribution. > > This is not a FSF free license. > > If possible, could you please re-license this file under a FSF free > license.

But Artistic is more free than FSF?!

Thu Mar 12 14:48:21 2015 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

Fri Mar 13 03:53:22 2015 jplesnik [...] redhat.com - Correspondence added

From:

jplesnik [...] redhat.com

The Artistic 1.0 is not allowed for Fedora packages. The issue for us is this license isn't considered free by FSF [0]. So, we will have to drop it from the tarball. 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+/Artistic' [1], an FSF free license. I thought it is this case. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense

Fri Mar 13 09:32:51 2015 TIMB [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

I believe the author who claims copyright isn't available. Given that it was "Last updated: February 8th, 2000" I'm inclined to simply delete it. (Alternatively someone could do a major rewrite and put a fresh copyright and license on it.) Meanwhile, if Redhat want to ship a recent DBI, I'd be happy for them to simply remove the DBI::FAQ module.

Mon Mar 16 03:27:49 2015 jplesnik [...] redhat.com - Correspondence added

From:

jplesnik [...] redhat.com

If you remove the module, it helps me. Thank you.

Mon Mar 16 03:49:33 2015 REHSACK [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

Subject:

Non-free license for DBI::FAQ from Fedora perspective

Tim, as said, I'm happy to give it a shot, but this is not a quick one. First, we should collect the recent most asked questions in dbi-dev@ and dbi-users@. We should face our irc experience and the PM's we attend. This will take 8-12 weeks until we have the questions. After that, it'll take some time to accomplish the answers. Buuuuuuuut - the narrow-minded license policy of Fedora doesn't motivate me to priorize the FAQ project. If a Debian package exists (and it does), I'm fine with Fedora < Debian for any larger database project. A current customer escalates the IT chose of RHEL because no DBI is packaged but Debian serves fine. All Linux servers have Perl software connecting to some databases. If RedHat and Fedora continuing this policy, we sooner or later have more Debian in Datacenters, which is great.

Mon Mar 16 04:05:23 2015 MICHIELB [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

Hi Jens, On Mon Mar 16 03:49:33 2015, REHSACK wrote: Show quoted text

> > Buuuuuuuut - the narrow-minded license policy of Fedora doesn't > motivate me to priorize the FAQ project. If a Debian package exists > (and it does), I'm fine with Fedora < Debian for any larger database > project. > > A current customer escalates the IT chose of RHEL because no DBI is > packaged but Debian serves fine. All Linux servers have Perl software > connecting to some databases. If RedHat and Fedora continuing this > policy, we sooner or later have more Debian in Datacenters, which is > great.

You seem to imply there would be no DBI in RHEL? But all jplesnik writes is: Show quoted text

> The issue for us is this license isn't considered free by FSF [0]. So, we will have to drop it from the tarball.

And TIMB writes back: Show quoted text

> Meanwhile, if Redhat want to ship a recent DBI, I'd be happy for them to simply remove the DBI::FAQ module.

So this would mean if the licensing of DBI::FAQ would not change, there would still be a DBI package in RHEL, it would just come without DBI::FAQ. And to be honest, that would not be a complete and utter disaster. -- Michiel

Mon Mar 16 04:15:05 2015 REHSACK [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

On Mon Mar 16 04:05:23 2015, MICHIELB wrote: Show quoted text

> Hi Jens, > > On Mon Mar 16 03:49:33 2015, REHSACK wrote:

> > > > Buuuuuuuut - the narrow-minded license policy of Fedora doesn't > > motivate me to priorize the FAQ project. If a Debian package exists > > (and it does), I'm fine with Fedora < Debian for any larger database > > project. > > > > A current customer escalates the IT chose of RHEL because no DBI is > > packaged but Debian serves fine. All Linux servers have Perl software > > connecting to some databases. If RedHat and Fedora continuing this > > policy, we sooner or later have more Debian in Datacenters, which is > > great.

> > You seem to imply there would be no DBI in RHEL? > > But all jplesnik writes is:

> > The issue for us is this license isn't considered free by FSF [0]. > > So, we will have to drop it from the tarball.

In Fedora - which is one of the free distributions under the hood of RedHat ... It's a long way from Fedora to RHEL ;) Show quoted text

> And TIMB writes back:

> > Meanwhile, if Redhat want to ship a recent DBI, I'd be happy for them > > to simply remove the DBI::FAQ module.

> > So this would mean if the licensing of DBI::FAQ would not change, > there would still be a DBI package in RHEL, it would just come without > DBI::FAQ. And to be honest, that would not be a complete and utter > disaster.

I fully agree. Until someone realizes, that DBI could be also used under Artistic-1.0 license. Well ... principiis obsta, (dum) sero medicina paratur cum mala per longas convaluere moras - It is too late to employ medicine when the evil has grown strong by inveterate habit.

Mon Apr 06 14:15:53 2015 ribasushi [...] leporine.io - Cc RIBASUSHI added

Fri Apr 22 10:16:08 2016 TIMB [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

I've removed DBI::FAQ in f6b4aa5.

Fri Apr 22 10:16:16 2016 TIMB [...] cpan.org - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'