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

Re: inline module in a perl script

Le jeudi 31 janvier 2013 15:43:45, Mateusz Kijowski a écrit :

> What would be the proper approach to this? The easiest way would be to
> package pgbadger with the inline modified module, but I doubt that it
> is the proper way.

It's not the best way. But the inline version of SQL::Beautify is indeed 
embedded in pgbadger so there's no risk of clash between pgbadger file and 
original SQL::Beautify module.

> Another approach would be to prod the SQL::Beautify
> module developer to consider the changes made by pgbadger developer,
> and then package the patched module as a separate perl package.

To answer, we need to know the amount of modification between original 
SQL::Beautify and its inlined version and its impact on backward 

> Another issue is that the script itself has BSD license, but the
> module has Artistic License 2.0. Both of them are in one file, so I am
> wondering if debian/copyright permits a file to have two different
> licenses for two parts of a file.

I don't think that a problem. Copying code within a file is another form of 
aggregation of work. Since the licenses are compatible, it's not a big deal.
The pgbadger entry in the copyright will have to list all copyright owners 
(with the inlined javascript author) and list the licenses (e.g. "License: BSD 
and Artistic and ...) . A comment to explain the concatenation of work in a 
single file would not hurt.

All in all, I don't think there a roadblock to package pgbadger as is even if 
the resulting package will be lackluster.

Thoughts ?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: