Blame SOURCES/Pod-Html-license-clarification

276c98
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
276c98
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
276c98
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
276c98
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
276c98
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
276c98
 jplesnik@redhat.com
276c98
MIME-Version: 1.0
276c98
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
276c98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
276c98
276c98
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
276c98
276c98
Sent from my Sprint phone
276c98
276c98
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
276c98
276c98
>Marc, Tom,
276c98
>
276c98
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
276c98
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
276c98
>the Artistic license (only).
276c98
>
276c98
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
276c98
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
276c98
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
276c98
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
276c98
>or Module::Install.
276c98
>
276c98
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
276c98
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
276c98
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
276c98
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
276c98
>of Pod::Html?
276c98
>
276c98
>Thanks,
276c98
>Petr
276c98
>
276c98
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
276c98
>
276c98
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
276c98
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense