7e86df
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
7e86df
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
7e86df
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
7e86df
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
7e86df
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
7e86df
 jplesnik@redhat.com
7e86df
MIME-Version: 1.0
7e86df
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
7e86df
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
7e86df
7e86df
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
7e86df
7e86df
Sent from my Sprint phone
7e86df
7e86df
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
7e86df
7e86df
>Marc, Tom,
7e86df
>
7e86df
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
7e86df
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
7e86df
>the Artistic license (only).
7e86df
>
7e86df
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
7e86df
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
7e86df
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
7e86df
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
7e86df
>or Module::Install.
7e86df
>
7e86df
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
7e86df
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
7e86df
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
7e86df
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
7e86df
>of Pod::Html?
7e86df
>
7e86df
>Thanks,
7e86df
>Petr
7e86df
>
7e86df
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
7e86df
>
7e86df
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
7e86df
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense