| Server IP : 92.204.138.22 / Your IP : 3.141.38.154 Web Server : Apache System : Linux ns1009439.ip-92-204-138.us 4.18.0-553.8.1.el8_10.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jul 2 07:26:33 EDT 2024 x86_64 User : internationaljou ( 1019) PHP Version : 7.4.33 Disable Function : NONE MySQL : OFF | cURL : ON | WGET : ON | Perl : ON | Python : ON | Sudo : ON | Pkexec : ON Directory : /home/internationaljou/public_html/admin/js/BROKY_ADMIN/alfasymlink/root/usr/share/licenses/perl-Pod-Html/ |
Upload File : |
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600 Subject: Re: Pod::Html license From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com> To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org, jplesnik@redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl. Sent from my Sprint phone Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote: >Marc, Tom, > >I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and >noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under >the Artistic license (only). > >This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by >FSF [0]. Unless the license of this core component changes, we >will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it >from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build >or Module::Install. > >What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their >module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant >was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1], >an FSF free license. Is it possible this is also the case >of Pod::Html? > >Thanks, >Petr > >(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora) > >[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense >[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense