78f1eb
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
78f1eb
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
78f1eb
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
78f1eb
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
78f1eb
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
78f1eb
 jplesnik@redhat.com
78f1eb
MIME-Version: 1.0
78f1eb
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
78f1eb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
78f1eb
78f1eb
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
78f1eb
78f1eb
Sent from my Sprint phone
78f1eb
78f1eb
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
78f1eb
78f1eb
>Marc, Tom,
78f1eb
>
78f1eb
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
78f1eb
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
78f1eb
>the Artistic license (only).
78f1eb
>
78f1eb
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
78f1eb
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
78f1eb
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
78f1eb
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
78f1eb
>or Module::Install.
78f1eb
>
78f1eb
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
78f1eb
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
78f1eb
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
78f1eb
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
78f1eb
>of Pod::Html?
78f1eb
>
78f1eb
>Thanks,
78f1eb
>Petr
78f1eb
>
78f1eb
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
78f1eb
>
78f1eb
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
78f1eb
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense