Blame SOURCES/Pod-Html-license-clarification

243a19
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
243a19
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
243a19
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
243a19
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
243a19
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
243a19
 jplesnik@redhat.com
243a19
MIME-Version: 1.0
243a19
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
243a19
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
243a19
243a19
Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.
243a19
243a19
Sent from my Sprint phone
243a19
243a19
Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:
243a19
243a19
>Marc, Tom,
243a19
>
243a19
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
243a19
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
243a19
>the Artistic license (only).
243a19
>
243a19
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
243a19
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
243a19
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
243a19
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
243a19
>or Module::Install.
243a19
>
243a19
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
243a19
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
243a19
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
243a19
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
243a19
>of Pod::Html?
243a19
>
243a19
>Thanks,
243a19
>Petr
243a19
>
243a19
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
243a19
>
243a19
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
243a19
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense