04bfb0
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
04bfb0
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
04bfb0
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
04bfb0
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
04bfb0
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
04bfb0
 jplesnik@redhat.com
04bfb0
MIME-Version: 1.0
04bfb0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
04bfb0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
04bfb0
04bfb0
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
04bfb0
04bfb0
Sent from my Sprint phone
04bfb0
04bfb0
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
04bfb0
04bfb0
>Marc, Tom,
04bfb0
>
04bfb0
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
04bfb0
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
04bfb0
>the Artistic license (only).
04bfb0
>
04bfb0
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
04bfb0
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
04bfb0
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
04bfb0
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
04bfb0
>or Module::Install.
04bfb0
>
04bfb0
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
04bfb0
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
04bfb0
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
04bfb0
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
04bfb0
>of Pod::Html?
04bfb0
>
04bfb0
>Thanks,
04bfb0
>Petr
04bfb0
>
04bfb0
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
04bfb0
>
04bfb0
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
04bfb0
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense