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

Re: Copyright License Proposal

On 11-06-06 at 11:55pm, Ingy dot Net wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> wrote:

> > True, both Acme and Module::Install has same licensing but not true 
> > that you are the sole author of the Acme project as shipped in the 
> > tarballs!
> >
> > So "we" being Debian cannot fully automate redistribution of your 
> > project the way you currently document our permission to do so, 
> > because you do not explicitly and machine-readable state who gave 
> > Debian the permission to redistribute inc/* under the same license 
> > as Perl.
> >
> My head is a bit swimming here, but if you are saying that using 
> Module::Install as a packaging tool impedes on the licensing of the 
> module it packages then this is a bug that needs to be dealt with 
> outright. It is certainly not the intent of Module::Install to impose 
> this.

No, the issue I raise is not that Acme depends on Module::Install for 
installation routines, but that it _includes_ pieces of Module::Install 
in the distributed sources.

You declare your distributed tarballs as "copyright Ingy" when in fact 
some parts of the tarball are "Copyright authors of Module::Install".

I suspect you did not write the code below the inc/ subdir, right?

> In any case, can we not automate anything that a human would create by 
> hand, as long as the person with the right to automate understands 
> what they are doing, and asserts that it is correct?

Yes, it is possible to automate things.  Is you aim to satisfy the needs 
of CPAN or the needs of Debian?

Debian needs to track _authors_, not only licenses.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: