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)



Subject: LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 501b
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?
RT-Send-CC: cpan [...] audreyt.org, smueller [...] cpan.org
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 1.3k
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
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 438b
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".
From: jplesnik [...] redhat.com
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 1.5k
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


This service is sponsored and maintained by Best Practical Solutions and runs on Perl.org infrastructure.

Please report any issues with rt.cpan.org to rt-cpan-admin@bestpractical.com.