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