On Tue Apr 14 21:23:24 2015, DCOPPIT wrote:
Show quoted text> On Mon Apr 13 03:57:12 2015, paul@city-fan.org wrote:
> > I'm sure this wasn't intended:
> >
> > $ make pure_install
> > Manifying 5 pod documents
> > Installing
> > /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Module/Install/PRIVATE/Add_Test_Target.pm
> > Installing /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Mbox/MessageParser.pm
> > Installing
> > /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Mbox/MessageParser/Perl.pm
> > Installing
> > /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Mbox/MessageParser/Grep.pm
> > Installing
> > /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Mbox/MessageParser/Cache.pm
> > Installing
> > /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Mbox/MessageParser/MetaInfo.pm
> > Installing
> > /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Mbox/MessageParser/Config.pm
> > Installing /usr/share/man/man3/Mail::Mbox::MessageParser::Perl.3pm
> > Installing
> > /usr/share/man/man3/Mail::Mbox::MessageParser::MetaInfo.3pm
> > Installing /usr/share/man/man3/Mail::Mbox::MessageParser::Grep.3pm
> > Installing /usr/share/man/man3/Mail::Mbox::MessageParser::Cache.3pm
> > Installing /usr/share/man/man3/Mail::Mbox::MessageParser.3pm
>
> Do you mean that there shouldn't be man pages for those? Why not?
> They're usable modules that happen to be distributed together.
> Although M::M::MP provides a factory class for instantiating the
> implementations, one doesn't have to use it.
No, no, those are fine. But along with those, the private install module Module/Install/PRIVATE/Add_Test_Target.pm is getting installed on the user's system, which I don't think was intentional.
Show quoted text> > Also, could you clarify that the grepmail stack is now licensed under
> > GPLv2 rather than any version of the GPL? The LICENSE file says v2
> > but
> > the LICENSE section of the PODs doesn't specify a version.
>
> First, in case there was any misunderstanding, it's always been GPLv2.
Maybe so, but I haven't noticed there being a specific version before. If there isn't a specific version mentioned, it's generally interpreted to mean "any version":
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F
Show quoted text> I don't see this as a big deadl. Many many modules leave the details
> of the licensing unspecified in the POD.
This is unfortunate from the point of view of downstream distributors, who are keen to know under what terms they may distribute the code.
Show quoted text> The standard "same terms as
> Perl itself" is both vague and ill-defined (to the extent that
> different versions of perl might have different licenses).
True, but at least the author can be sure that their code will remain compatible with perl licensing, even if that should change.
Show quoted text> While I could add more information, that creates more duplication and
> therefore more maintenance. I'm inclined to remove that section
> entirely, and just rely on the README's section and the LICENSE file.
>
> Thoughts?
If you wanted to remove duplication, I'd be more inclined to remove the licensing from the README and keep it in the POD. Having it in the same file as the code it's licensing is the clearest and most unambiguous way of specifying the licensing, and less likely to be missed by anyone re-using your code.
