b8876f
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
b8876f
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
b8876f
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
b8876f
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
b8876f
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
b8876f
 jplesnik@redhat.com
b8876f
MIME-Version: 1.0
b8876f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
b8876f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
b8876f
b8876f
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
b8876f
b8876f
Sent from my Sprint phone
b8876f
b8876f
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
b8876f
b8876f
>Marc, Tom,
b8876f
>
b8876f
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
b8876f
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
b8876f
>the Artistic license (only).
b8876f
>
b8876f
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
b8876f
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
b8876f
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
b8876f
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
b8876f
>or Module::Install.
b8876f
>
b8876f
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
b8876f
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
b8876f
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
b8876f
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
b8876f
>of Pod::Html?
b8876f
>
b8876f
>Thanks,
b8876f
>Petr
b8876f
>
b8876f
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
b8876f
>
b8876f
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
b8876f
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense