[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How to ask Upstream for clarification of "under the same terms as Perl itself" license

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Marc Haber wrote:
> I have just had a package rejected by ftpmaster because the copyright
> file contained 

> |This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> |modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. See
> |/usr/share/common-licenses and /usr/share/doc/perl/copyright.

First off, your copyright file needs to reference the Copyright and
the licenses themselves, eg:

  Copyright: Copyright (C) YYYY-XXXX Foolish Barnone. All rights
  reserved. This program is free software; you can redistribute it
  and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.

   License: GPL, Artistic, available at /usr/share/common-licenses/{GPL,Artistic}

> ftpmaster basically says that this cannot get into Debian until
> Upstream has clarified the license which is at the moment
> unacceptable for Debian.

From the long -legal thread[1], many acknowledged this as a possible
problem, and recommended where possible that upstreams be made aware
of the flexibility of interpretation of the perl style
copyright/licensing clause.

However, I'm not aware of ftpmasters beginning to reject perl packages
solely because of this problem... so reread your reject message
carefully, then read James Troup's more detailed explanation.[2].

Don Armstrong

1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200302/msg00039.html
2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2003/debian-perl-200302/msg00008.html
My spelling ability, or rather the lack thereof, is one of the wonders
of the modern world.


Attachment: pgpxBznHeihkd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: