683572
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
683572
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
683572
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
683572
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
683572
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
683572
 jplesnik@redhat.com
683572
MIME-Version: 1.0
683572
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
683572
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
683572
683572
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
683572
683572
Sent from my Sprint phone
683572
683572
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
683572
683572
>Marc, Tom,
683572
>
683572
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
683572
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
683572
>the Artistic license (only).
683572
>
683572
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
683572
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
683572
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
683572
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
683572
>or Module::Install.
683572
>
683572
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
683572
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
683572
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
683572
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
683572
>of Pod::Html?
683572
>
683572
>Thanks,
683572
>Petr
683572
>
683572
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
683572
>
683572
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
683572
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense