Skip Menu |

This queue is for tickets about the Module-ScanDeps CPAN distribution.

Report information
The Basics
Id: 117955
Status: open
Priority: 0/
Queue: Module-ScanDeps
People
Owner: Nobody in particular
Requestors: jplesnik [...] redhat.com
Cc:
AdminCc:
Bug Information
Severity: (no value)
Broken in: 1.22
Fixed in: (no value)

History Show all quoted text
  Mon Sep 19 05:55:44 2016 jplesnik [...] redhat.com - Ticket created
Subject: LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm
Module-ScanDeps-1.22 has weird license declaration. While LICENSE file quotes Artistic 2.0 license, lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other module) files declares "same terms as Perl itself" and that means GPL+ or Artistic 1 (see http://dev.perl.org/licenses/). The current wordings implies that lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other module) files are covered by GPL+ or Artistic 1 licenses and the other files like wip/scan_dlls.pl are covered by Artistic 2.0 license. Is that really what the author wants?
  Mon Sep 19 08:23:27 2016 RSCHUPP [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added
RT-Send-CC: cpan [...] audreyt.org, smueller [...] cpan.org
Am 2016-09-19 05:55:44, jplesnik schrieb: Show quoted text
> Module-ScanDeps-1.22 has weird license declaration. While LICENSE file > quotes Artistic 2.0 license, lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other > module) files declares "same terms as Perl itself" and that means GPL+ > or Artistic 1 (see http://dev.perl.org/licenses/). > > The current wordings implies that lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other > module) files are covered by GPL+ or Artistic 1 licenses and the other > files like wip/scan_dlls.pl are covered by Artistic 2.0 license. > > Is that really what the author wants?
Who knows? I'm just the maintainer, not the original author. There was no separate LICENSE file until I moved Module::ScanDeps, PAR and PAR::Packer to GitHub. I agree that I picked the wrong LICENSE with the current "Artistic 2.0". What do you think about something like https://github.com/libwww-perl/libwww-perl/blob/master/LICENSE (without "This software is copyright (c) 1995 by Gisle Aas.", obviously). Note that the wording This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. See L<http://www.perl.com/perl/misc/Artistic.html> in the source (and original README) is already ambiguous, as the given link (nowadays) points to "Artistic 1.0", NOT to Larry Wall's original statement (as given in http://dev.perl.org/licenses/). Cheers, Roderich
  Mon Sep 19 08:23:28 2016 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'
  Mon Sep 19 13:14:47 2016 ether [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added
On 2016-09-19 05:23:27, RSCHUPP wrote: Show quoted text
> Who knows? I'm just the maintainer, not the original author. > There was no separate LICENSE file until I moved Module::ScanDeps, PAR > and PAR::Packer to GitHub. I agree that I picked the wrong LICENSE > with > the current "Artistic 2.0".
I think you should ask Gisle if he's okay with moving the distribution to be covered by Artistic 2.0, so everything can be made more uniform and "modern".
  Tue Sep 20 03:20:00 2016 jplesnik [...] redhat.com - Correspondence added
From: jplesnik [...] redhat.com
On Mon Sep 19 08:23:27 2016, RSCHUPP wrote: Show quoted text
> Am 2016-09-19 05:55:44, jplesnik schrieb:
> > Module-ScanDeps-1.22 has weird license declaration. While LICENSE > > file > > quotes Artistic 2.0 license, lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other > > module) files declares "same terms as Perl itself" and that means > > GPL+ > > or Artistic 1 (see http://dev.perl.org/licenses/). > > > > The current wordings implies that lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other > > module) files are covered by GPL+ or Artistic 1 licenses and the > > other > > files like wip/scan_dlls.pl are covered by Artistic 2.0 license. > > > > Is that really what the author wants?
> > Who knows? I'm just the maintainer, not the original author. > There was no separate LICENSE file until I moved Module::ScanDeps, PAR > and PAR::Packer to GitHub. I agree that I picked the wrong LICENSE > with > the current "Artistic 2.0". > What do you think about something like > > https://github.com/libwww-perl/libwww-perl/blob/master/LICENSE
This license file is ok. Show quoted text
> (without "This software is copyright (c) 1995 by Gisle Aas.", > obviously). > > Note that the wording > > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > it > under the same terms as Perl itself. > > See L<http://www.perl.com/perl/misc/Artistic.html>
The link should be replace by http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ to reference the license correctly. Show quoted text
> in the source (and original README) is already ambiguous, as the given > link (nowadays) points to "Artistic 1.0", NOT to Larry Wall's > original statement (as given in http://dev.perl.org/licenses/). > > Cheers, Roderich