Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I hope I'm not starting a licensing flamewar here, but your licence section reads:

    This module is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. See L.

    Now, the same terms as Perl (?) itself, if we assume that Perl == perl 5, would mean a dual-GPLv2-and-above and Artistic 1.0 *only*. Now, the Artistic 1.0 licence is very vague and is considered neither GPL-compatible nor free by the Free Software Foundation [fsf.org]. And the GPL is well, the GPL [gnu.org] and has its own restrications and complications.

    Please consider also licensing your module under the Artistic Licence v. 2.0 (and possibly future versions of the Artistic Licence) which is well-phrased, free, GPL (version 2 and above) compatible, and more permissive than the GPL. (e.g: it allows publically-distributed code to be linked against it without needed to be GPL-compatible, and ergo free-software).

    One option would be to license it under the GPLv2 or any later version and the Artistic 1.0 or any later version.

    • Do you realize this is the standard way of licensing Perl modules? What in the world made you single out this one module and this one author for this subject?

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • Do you realize this is the standard way of licensing Perl modules? What in the world made you single out this one module and this one author for this subject?

        I didn't single out Aristotle or his module in particular, nor accused him of doing anything wrong in particular. I just noted that in his general request-for-comments for the module because I noticed it there. (Better late than never, I guess).

        I just wanted to note that from now on, it would be a better idea from the legal standpoint to use a different wording of the licensing terms as I explained above to avoid the licensing problems that the "same as perl5" face.

        But thanks for noting that - I'

    • I don’t care. Show me someone who is having a problem.

      • With respect, by the time there is a problem, it's rather too late to change the license text.

        I've updated my modules to read that they are available under the same license as the Perl 5.8.x series.

        • That’s a different matter (and thanks for pointing it out; I’ma fix my module template right now).

          What Shlomi is asking for is a complete change of licences. Now, neither option in the Perl (5.8) licence is my personal best preference. (I like the LGPL best.) But that’s how 99.5% of the CPAN is licensed, and since these terms don’t cause big problems in practice, there’s more value in not forcing the user to evaluate yet another licence than there is in having slightly better

          • I misunderstood your concern; I agree with the desire to stay compatible with the rest of the CPAN.