Bug #28813 for Tie-EncryptedHash: Artistic license

Mon Aug 13 10:31:39 2007 paul [...] city-fan.org - Ticket created

Subject:

Artistic license

Would you consider re-licensing Tie-EncryptedHash under either the same terms as perl (GPL or Artistic), or under the terms of the Artistic license v2.0? I'm currently maintaining a package of Tie-EncryptedHash for Fedora, for which the original Artistic license is problematic (see also http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#ArtisticLicense). More discussion on this here: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-August/msg00016.html

Tue Jul 15 05:11:05 2008 VIPUL [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

Licensed under Artistic 2.0 | GPL in 1.22.

Tue Jul 15 05:11:11 2008 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

Tue Jul 15 05:11:35 2008 VIPUL [...] cpan.org - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'

Tue Jul 15 07:45:00 2008 http://pghmcfc.id.fedoraproject.org/ - Correspondence added

From:

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

On Tue Jul 15 05:11:05 2008, VIPUL wrote: Show quoted text

> Licensed under Artistic 2.0 | GPL in 1.22.

The situation in 1.23 isn't that clear: The CHANGES file says "Artistic 2.0 | GPL" The README file says "Artistic" The module itself says "same as perl", which would be "Artistic (original) or GPL (any version)" The "same as perl" license is fine for Fedora by the way, as we can just use the GPL half of the dual license so it doesn't matter that the other license is the problematic old Artistic license.

Tue Jul 15 07:45:03 2008 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'resolved' to 'open'

Tue Jul 15 20:16:05 2008 paul [...] city-fan.org - Correspondence added

From:

paul [...] city-fan.org

On Tue Jul 15 07:45:00 2008, http://pghmcfc.id.fedoraproject.org/ wrote: Show quoted text

> On Tue Jul 15 05:11:05 2008, VIPUL wrote:

> > Licensed under Artistic 2.0 | GPL in 1.22.

> > The situation in 1.23 isn't that clear: > > The CHANGES file says "Artistic 2.0 | GPL" > > The README file says "Artistic" > > The module itself says "same as perl", which would be "Artistic > (original) or GPL (any version)" > > The "same as perl" license is fine for Fedora by the way, as we can just > use the GPL half of the dual license so it doesn't matter that the other > license is the problematic old Artistic license.

Thanks for the 1.24 update; I'm happy now :-)

Sun Jul 20 03:53:50 2008 VIPUL [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

Excellent.

Sun Jul 20 03:53:57 2008 VIPUL [...] cpan.org - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'