f6ea51
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
f6ea51
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
f6ea51
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
f6ea51
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
f6ea51
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
f6ea51
 jplesnik@redhat.com
f6ea51
MIME-Version: 1.0
f6ea51
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
f6ea51
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
f6ea51
f6ea51
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
f6ea51
f6ea51
Sent from my Sprint phone
f6ea51
f6ea51
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
f6ea51
f6ea51
>Marc, Tom,
f6ea51
>
f6ea51
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
f6ea51
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
f6ea51
>the Artistic license (only).
f6ea51
>
f6ea51
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
f6ea51
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
f6ea51
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
f6ea51
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
f6ea51
>or Module::Install.
f6ea51
>
f6ea51
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
f6ea51
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
f6ea51
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
f6ea51
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
f6ea51
>of Pod::Html?
f6ea51
>
f6ea51
>Thanks,
f6ea51
>Petr
f6ea51
>
f6ea51
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
f6ea51
>
f6ea51
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
f6ea51
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense