[rt.cpan.org #117955] LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm

[Jitka Plesnikova via RT]

Mon Sep 19 05:55:44 2016: Request 117955 was acted upon.
Transaction: Ticket created by jplesnik
Queue: Module-ScanDeps
Subject: LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm
Broken in: 1.22
Severity: (no value)
Owner: Nobody
Requestors: ***@redhat.com
Status: new
Ticket <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=117955 >


Module-ScanDeps-1.22 has weird license declaration. While LICENSE file quotes Artistic 2.0 license, lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other module) files declares "same terms as Perl itself" and that means GPL+ or Artistic 1 (see http://dev.perl.org/licenses/).

The current wordings implies that lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other module) files are covered by GPL+ or Artistic 1 licenses and the other files like wip/scan_dlls.pl are covered by Artistic 2.0 license.

Is that really what the author wants?

[Roderich Schupp via RT]

Mon Sep 19 08:23:27 2016: Request 117955 was acted upon.
Transaction: Correspondence added by RSCHUPP
Queue: Module-ScanDeps
Subject: LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm
Broken in: 1.22
Severity: (no value)
Owner: Nobody
Requestors: ***@redhat.com
Status: new
Ticket <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=117955 >

Post by Jitka Plesnikova via RT
Module-ScanDeps-1.22 has weird license declaration. While LICENSE file
quotes Artistic 2.0 license, lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other
module) files declares "same terms as Perl itself" and that means GPL+
or Artistic 1 (see http://dev.perl.org/licenses/).
The current wordings implies that lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other
module) files are covered by GPL+ or Artistic 1 licenses and the other
files like wip/scan_dlls.pl are covered by Artistic 2.0 license.
Is that really what the author wants?

Who knows? I'm just the maintainer, not the original author.
There was no separate LICENSE file until I moved Module::ScanDeps, PAR and PAR::Packer to GitHub. I agree that I picked the wrong LICENSE with
the current "Artistic 2.0".
What do you think about something like

https://github.com/libwww-perl/libwww-perl/blob/master/LICENSE

(without "This software is copyright (c) 1995 by Gisle Aas.", obviously).

Note that the wording

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the same terms as Perl itself.

See L<http://www.perl.com/perl/misc/Artistic.html>

in the source (and original README) is already ambiguous, as the given
link (nowadays) points to "Artistic 1.0", NOT to Larry Wall's
original statement (as given in http://dev.perl.org/licenses/).

Cheers, Roderich

[Karen Etheridge via RT]

Mon Sep 19 13:14:47 2016: Request 117955 was acted upon.
Transaction: Correspondence added by ETHER
Queue: Module-ScanDeps
Subject: LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm
Broken in: 1.22
Severity: (no value)
Owner: Nobody
Requestors: ***@redhat.com
Status: open
Ticket <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=117955 >

Post by Roderich Schupp via RT
Who knows? I'm just the maintainer, not the original author.
There was no separate LICENSE file until I moved Module::ScanDeps, PAR
and PAR::Packer to GitHub. I agree that I picked the wrong LICENSE
with
the current "Artistic 2.0".

I think you should ask Gisle if he's okay with moving the distribution to be covered by Artistic 2.0, so everything can be made more uniform and "modern".

[Jitka Plesnikova via RT]

Tue Sep 20 03:20:00 2016: Request 117955 was acted upon.
Transaction: Correspondence added by jplesnik
Queue: Module-ScanDeps
Subject: LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm
Broken in: 1.22
Severity: (no value)
Owner: Nobody
Requestors: ***@redhat.com
Status: open
Ticket <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=117955 >

Post by Roderich Schupp via RT

Post by Jitka Plesnikova via RT
Module-ScanDeps-1.22 has weird license declaration. While LICENSE
file
quotes Artistic 2.0 license, lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other
module) files declares "same terms as Perl itself" and that means
GPL+
or Artistic 1 (see http://dev.perl.org/licenses/).
The current wordings implies that lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other
module) files are covered by GPL+ or Artistic 1 licenses and the
other
files like wip/scan_dlls.pl are covered by Artistic 2.0 license.
Is that really what the author wants?

Who knows? I'm just the maintainer, not the original author.
There was no separate LICENSE file until I moved Module::ScanDeps, PAR
and PAR::Packer to GitHub. I agree that I picked the wrong LICENSE
with
the current "Artistic 2.0".
What do you think about something like
https://github.com/libwww-perl/libwww-perl/blob/master/LICENSE

This license file is ok.

Post by Roderich Schupp via RT
(without "This software is copyright (c) 1995 by Gisle Aas.",
obviously).
Note that the wording
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it
under the same terms as Perl itself.
See L<http://www.perl.com/perl/misc/Artistic.html>

The link should be replace by http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ to reference the license correctly.

Post by Roderich Schupp via RT
in the source (and original README) is already ambiguous, as the given
link (nowadays) points to "Artistic 1.0", NOT to Larry Wall's
original statement (as given in http://dev.perl.org/licenses/).
Cheers, Roderich