Bug #18771 for Crypt-RSA: License text inconsistency

Tue Apr 18 10:23:20 2006 Guest - Ticket created

Subject:

License text inconsistency

Crypt-RSA is licensed under the same terms as Perl itself, i.e. dual GPL/Artistic. The text of the Artistic license is included in the distribution in the ARTISTIC file, but the text of the GPL is omitted. Is there any particular reason for this, or is it just an oversight?

Tue Apr 18 21:15:39 2006 VIPUL [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

From:

Vipul Ved Prakash

Is it important to include GPL in the distribution? I have not included in any of my distributions, just by convention as I thought that mentioning the license names was sufficient. On Tue Apr 18 10:23:20 2006, guest wrote: Show quoted text

> Crypt-RSA is licensed under the same terms as Perl itself, i.e. dual > GPL/Artistic. The text of the Artistic license is included in the > distribution in the ARTISTIC file, but the text of the GPL is omitted. > Is there any particular reason for this, or is it just an oversight?

Tue Apr 18 21:15:40 2006 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

Wed Apr 19 02:47:21 2006 Guest - Correspondence added

From:

Paul Howarth <paul [...] city-fan.org>

On Tue Apr 18 21:15:39 2006, VIPUL wrote: Show quoted text

> Is it important to include GPL in the distribution? I have not included > in any of my distributions, just by convention as I thought that > mentioning the license names was sufficient.

Well most people don't seem to bother with this for perl packages, but on the other hand most "traditional" GPL:ed projects (complete programs rather than modules) do include it. The question was more one of consistency really, since the text of the Artistic license could equally well be included or omitted. The reason I ask is that I'm currently in the process of introducing an RPM package for this module into Fedora Extras, and one of the guidelines for packagers is that if the license text for a package's license is included in the upstream distribution, the license text must be included in the RPM package, and if the license text is not included in the upstream distribution, upstream should be asked to include it in future distributions. So at the moment I'm packaging the ARTISTIC file and suggesting that the text of the GPL (e.g. the usual COPYING) file be included in any future versions. I'm not au fait with the legalities myself but I'm sure Red Hat's lawyers have good reason for this policy. Fedora Extras Package Review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183888 Fedora Extras Package Review Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

Fri Dec 22 00:51:24 2006 VIPUL [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

From:

VIPUL [...] cpan.org

On Wed Apr 19 02:47:21 2006, guest wrote: Show quoted text

> On Tue Apr 18 21:15:39 2006, VIPUL wrote:

> > Is it important to include GPL in the distribution? I have not included > > in any of my distributions, just by convention as I thought that > > mentioning the license names was sufficient.

> > Well most people don't seem to bother with this for perl packages, but > on the other hand most "traditional" GPL:ed projects (complete programs > rather than modules) do include it. The question was more one of > consistency really, since the text of the Artistic license could equally > well be included or omitted. > > The reason I ask is that I'm currently in the process of introducing an > RPM package for this module into Fedora Extras, and one of the > guidelines for packagers is that if the license text for a package's > license is included in the upstream distribution, the license text must > be included in the RPM package, and if the license text is not included > in the upstream distribution, upstream should be asked to include it in > future distributions. > > So at the moment I'm packaging the ARTISTIC file and suggesting that the > text of the GPL (e.g. the usual COPYING) file be included in any future > versions. I'm not au fait with the legalities myself but I'm sure Red > Hat's lawyers have good reason for this policy. > > Fedora Extras Package Review: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183888 > > Fedora Extras Package Review Guidelines: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

Crypt::RSA 1.58 includes the GPL in the distribution. cheers, vipul

Fri Dec 22 00:52:26 2006 VIPUL [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

Resolved in 1.58.

Fri Dec 22 00:52:29 2006 VIPUL [...] cpan.org - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'

Fri Dec 22 00:52:32 2006 VIPUL [...] cpan.org - Given to VIPUL