Re: Inconsistent perl module acceptance by ftpmasters
Ardo van Rangelrooij <email@example.com> writes:
> At least one of these (libtest-inline-perl) still has the copyright in
> the "old" way which you don't accept.
*sigh* no, it's not.
| This is the debian package for the Test::Inline module.
| It was created by Ivan Kohler <firstname.lastname@example.org> using dh-make-perl.
| The upstream author is:
| Michael G Schwern <email@example.com>
| Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:37:11 -0800
| From: Michael G Schwern <firstname.lastname@example.org>
| Subject: Re: Test::Inline copyright
| Message-ID: <20030130063711.GG4189@george.schwern.org>
| Copyright 2001-2003 by Michael G Schwern <email@example.com>.
| This program is free software; you can redistribute it
| and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
| See http://www.perl.com/perl/misc/Artistic.html
The key difference is that upstream chose one of perl's licenses.
Your package had only "under the same terms as Perl itself" (with all
the associated problems previously discussed). Now granted,
libtest-inline-perl should refer to /usr/share/common-licenses/ rather
than the copy on the Perl web site and I obviously misread that. Bad
me. [I guess that since you care so strongly about this, you've
already filed a bug on the package right?]
But the actual point is libtest-inline-perl has a license (but refers
to the wrong external file), whereas libxml-filter-sax1tosax2-perl had
no (unequivocal) license (and didn't refer to _any_ external file).
> This is getting redicilous.
Actually I think you're already being far more than ridiculous.