3f1b01
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
3f1b01
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
3f1b01
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
3f1b01
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
3f1b01
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
3f1b01
 jplesnik@redhat.com
3f1b01
MIME-Version: 1.0
3f1b01
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
3f1b01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
3f1b01
3f1b01
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
3f1b01
3f1b01
Sent from my Sprint phone
3f1b01
3f1b01
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
3f1b01
3f1b01
>Marc, Tom,
3f1b01
>
3f1b01
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
3f1b01
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
3f1b01
>the Artistic license (only).
3f1b01
>
3f1b01
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
3f1b01
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
3f1b01
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
3f1b01
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
3f1b01
>or Module::Install.
3f1b01
>
3f1b01
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
3f1b01
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
3f1b01
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
3f1b01
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
3f1b01
>of Pod::Html?
3f1b01
>
3f1b01
>Thanks,
3f1b01
>Petr
3f1b01
>
3f1b01
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
3f1b01
>
3f1b01
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
3f1b01
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense