On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 21:59:10 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > - Multiple licenses in a single distribution is not a reality in CPAN > > world. At least not a reality worth making a big deal about in this > > context. > I'm dubious about this, from personal experience, particularly for modules > containing XS components. Ack, same here. Some quick and rough numbers: In our svn repo we have 1587 debian/copyright files that use DEP5 (found by grepping for "Format-Specification"). If there was only one copyright/license we should have two "Files:/Copyright:/License:" stanzas (one for upstream, and one for debian/*). In reality we have: 1 'Files:' stanza: 91 2 'Files:' stanzas: 1029 3 'Files:' stanzas: 320 4 'Files:' stanzas: 75 5 'Files:' stanzas: 25 6 'Files:' stanzas: 19 7 'Files:' stanzas: 8 8 'Files:' stanzas: 6 9 'Files:' stanzas: 1 10 'Files:' stanzas: 2 (and more ...) > There are a lot of things on CPAN whose authors seem to *think* are under > a single license, but that's not the same thing. If you actually look at > the source, there are often files under different licenses, and different > copyright notices are very common. This is particularly true of modules > with XS components. (The licenses are compatible, so this is usually not > any major problem, but Debian requires documenting those licenses.) Common third-party files (for all, not only XS modules) are Module::Install, and ppport.h, somtimes also Test::* files are bundled. And then there are examples or tests with different copyright notices, or dists that accumulate modules from somewhere else and/or change maintainership etc. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - PGP/GPG key ID: 0x8649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Dido: Isobel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature