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

    • 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'