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

Re: Please clarify Net-DBus license



On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 08:30:44AM +0200, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> I am trying to adopt the maintenance of Net-DBus in Debian under the
> umbrella of the Debian Perl group, and checking its license.
> 
> Unfortunately, I am not able to find consistent information on this
> topic in the 1.0.0 tarball, that would allow me to determine in with
> enough certainty what the actual license of the code is:
> 
>   * README and LICENSE both contain the same set of conflicting
>     information, namely
>       - "under the terms of Perl itself"
>       - either GPL-2+ or Artistic
>     ... while Perl is GPL-1+ or Artistic
> 
>   * META.yml does not help much, given it only mentions "gpl" only,
>     and points to the unversioned http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
>     URL, that currently contains... GPL version 3.
> 
> May you please clarify this somehow?

Yay, I suck.  Normally I'm the one complaining to upstream about their
inconsistent licensing statements !

I originally had it under the GPLv2+, but changed relicensed with
permission of all contributors, to be "under ther term of Perl
itself" for widest CPAN compatibility, ie GPLv1+ or Artistic. 

  commit 22ecbad234de63995505f302545fc548ae9aa3b0
  Author: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com>
  Date:   Wed Jul 5 18:44:21 2006 -0400

    Fix license blurb

  diff --git a/README b/README
  index 606b2ea..fb398b2 100644
  --- a/README
  +++ b/README
  @@ -115,7 +115,19 @@ COPYRIGHT AND LICENCE
 
   Copyright (C) 2004-2006 Daniel Berrange
 
  -This library is provided under the terms of the GNU GPL 
  +Net-DBus may be redistributed and/or modified under the terms of Perl itself.
  +Either:
  +
  +a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
  +   Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any
  +   later version
  +
  +or
  +
  +b) the "Artistic License"
  +
  +
  +See the file "COPYING" for the full text of each license
 
   -- End

I later chose to tweak it to "Artistic or GPLv2+". This should be
considered the current canonical license statement.

Can you file a bug at http://rt.cpan.org  requesting that I fix
the misleading license info this in the next release, so that I
don't forget about this again :-)

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|


Reply to: