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 res

    • 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.