34484a
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
34484a
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
34484a
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
34484a
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
34484a
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
34484a
 jplesnik@redhat.com
34484a
MIME-Version: 1.0
34484a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
34484a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
34484a
34484a
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
34484a
34484a
Sent from my Sprint phone
34484a
34484a
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
34484a
34484a
>Marc, Tom,
34484a
>
34484a
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
34484a
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
34484a
>the Artistic license (only).
34484a
>
34484a
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
34484a
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
34484a
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
34484a
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
34484a
>or Module::Install.
34484a
>
34484a
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
34484a
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
34484a
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
34484a
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
34484a
>of Pod::Html?
34484a
>
34484a
>Thanks,
34484a
>Petr
34484a
>
34484a
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
34484a
>
34484a
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
34484a
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense