dcb3b7
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
dcb3b7
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
dcb3b7
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
dcb3b7
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
dcb3b7
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
dcb3b7
 jplesnik@redhat.com
dcb3b7
MIME-Version: 1.0
dcb3b7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
dcb3b7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
dcb3b7
dcb3b7
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
dcb3b7
dcb3b7
Sent from my Sprint phone
dcb3b7
dcb3b7
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
dcb3b7
dcb3b7
>Marc, Tom,
dcb3b7
>
dcb3b7
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
dcb3b7
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
dcb3b7
>the Artistic license (only).
dcb3b7
>
dcb3b7
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
dcb3b7
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
dcb3b7
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
dcb3b7
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
dcb3b7
>or Module::Install.
dcb3b7
>
dcb3b7
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
dcb3b7
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
dcb3b7
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
dcb3b7
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
dcb3b7
>of Pod::Html?
dcb3b7
>
dcb3b7
>Thanks,
dcb3b7
>Petr
dcb3b7
>
dcb3b7
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
dcb3b7
>
dcb3b7
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
dcb3b7
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense