perl modules licenses

[Andrzej Krzysztofowicz]

Radoslaw Zielinski wrote:
> Andrzej Krzysztofowicz <ankry at green.mif.pg.gda.pl> [29-08-2003 08:39]:
> > Bartek Jakubski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 12:28:15AM +0200, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote:
> >>> Radoslaw Zielinski wrote:
> >>>> Bartek Jakubski <migo at supernet.com.pl> [27-08-2003 09:22]:
> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:50:29PM +0200, Radoslaw Zielinski wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>>> Maybe we should put "same as perl" or something like this in the
> >>>>>> License fields?
> >>>>> Just after sending this message I thought about the same. "Same as Pe=
> rl
> >>>>> itself".
> >>>> OK for me.
> >>> I don't see any advantage for users of indirect licensing info here.
> >>> It is inconvenient.=20
> >> Yes, but that's what license says.
> > So do we need to put special license eg. named "perl" for this case into
> > common-licenses package ? Perl itself will not use it.
> 
> IMHO it wouldn't harm.
> 
> Issue: the perl distribution contains Larry's interpretation of GPL
> (in README).  Is this a part of the perl's license and should be
> included in common-licenses?
> 
> >>> If we are aware of changing perl license, maybe implement an rpm macro,=
>  like
> >>> %{perl_license} ?
> >> What happens if perl changes license? The modules no longer will be
> > IMVHO, if old perl version are still available under the present licensing
> > scheme, it will be no problem. You can use old perl version with modules =
> on
> > the same licenses.
> 
> > If perl license in distribution changes, the module licenses changes also.
> > So - my macro proposition: it could just extract the license from the perl
> > package.
> 
> I don't like it.  Main reasons:
> 
> 1. This is an interpretation of this unclear statement.  IMHO, we should
>    keep away from it.  Inconvenient?  Who cares.  We're not supposed to
>    resolve legal problems for users.

What is unclear in this statement ?

> 2. We lose information, which could possibly be of use for those, who
>    would like to distribute PLD packages and drop the ones with weird
>    licenses.
> 
> 3. It's an unnecessary technical complication.

So what do you think about a statement like:
"same as perl (GPL v2+ or Artistic)"

You do not loose any information here (IMHO).

BTW: some packages has licenses like "same as <another perl module>".
Do we really need the string of dependencies in the informational field ???

> I don't like the idea of inheritance either, but I do agree with Bartek,
> that it's an author's decision, not our.
> 
> > Can perl license change to be non-GPL compliant ?
> 
> Hard to say.  Can it be changed at all?

If it can't I see no problem at all.

-- 
=======================================================================
  Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz               ankry at mif.pg.gda.pl
  phone (48)(58) 347 14 61
Faculty of Applied Phys. & Math.,   Gdansk University of Technology