d35ea2
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
d35ea2
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
d35ea2
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
d35ea2
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
d35ea2
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
d35ea2
 jplesnik@redhat.com
d35ea2
MIME-Version: 1.0
d35ea2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
d35ea2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
d35ea2
d35ea2
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
d35ea2
d35ea2
Sent from my Sprint phone
d35ea2
d35ea2
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
d35ea2
d35ea2
>Marc, Tom,
d35ea2
>
d35ea2
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
d35ea2
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
d35ea2
>the Artistic license (only).
d35ea2
>
d35ea2
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
d35ea2
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
d35ea2
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
d35ea2
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
d35ea2
>or Module::Install.
d35ea2
>
d35ea2
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
d35ea2
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
d35ea2
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
d35ea2
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
d35ea2
>of Pod::Html?
d35ea2
>
d35ea2
>Thanks,
d35ea2
>Petr
d35ea2
>
d35ea2
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
d35ea2
>
d35ea2
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
d35ea2
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense