a4ac56
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
a4ac56
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
a4ac56
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
a4ac56
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
a4ac56
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
a4ac56
 jplesnik@redhat.com
a4ac56
MIME-Version: 1.0
a4ac56
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
a4ac56
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
a4ac56
a4ac56
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
a4ac56
a4ac56
Sent from my Sprint phone
a4ac56
a4ac56
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
a4ac56
a4ac56
>Marc, Tom,
a4ac56
>
a4ac56
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
a4ac56
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
a4ac56
>the Artistic license (only).
a4ac56
>
a4ac56
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
a4ac56
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
a4ac56
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
a4ac56
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
a4ac56
>or Module::Install.
a4ac56
>
a4ac56
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
a4ac56
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
a4ac56
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
a4ac56
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
a4ac56
>of Pod::Html?
a4ac56
>
a4ac56
>Thanks,
a4ac56
>Petr
a4ac56
>
a4ac56
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
a4ac56
>
a4ac56
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
a4ac56
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense