#18771: 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?

On Wed Apr 19 02:47:21 2006, guest wrote:
> 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