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

Perl module licenses (was Re: libxml-filter-sax1tosax2-perl_0.03-1_i386.changes REJECTED)


Well, it seems to be the pedantic season here.  I got the following reply
from James Troup when trying to get libxml-filter-sax1tosax2-perl in Debian.

He has some points, but I've got a feeling that a lot more Perl  modules in
Debian has the same issue.  It's a common practice for modules to have
something like

  This is free software, you may use and distribute this module under
  the same terms as Perl itself.

and sofar this has not been a problem.

What to do?  Do we got back to all our upstream authors and ask them to
clarify their license?  Or...


James Troup (ftpmaster@debian.org) wrote:
> Hi,
>  Sorry to be pedantic but the only external files you're meant to
>  reference in the copyright file are the common licenses in base-files.
>  And saying it's "under the same license as Perl itself" is unhelpful;
>  which version of Perl?  What if Perl changes licenses? etc.  I realise
>  this may be an upstream thing; if so please ask them to clarify it to
>  specify GPL/Artistic explicitly so you can do the same in the
>  copyright file.
>  --
>  James
Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: ardo@debian.org
home page:  http://people.debian.org/~ardo
GnuPG fp:   3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73  7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9

Reply to: