License for perlunicook.pod

[Jitka Plesnikova]

Hi,

Could you please help me to find the correct license for fileperlunicook.pod[1]? It is part of 'perl-doc'.
The license text is:

Copyright © 2012 Tom Christiansen.

This program is free software; you may redistribute it and/or modify it
under the same terms as Perl itself.

Most of these examples taken from the current edition of the “Camel Book”;
that is, from the 4ᵗʰ Edition of I<Programming Perl>, Copyright © 2012 Tom
Christiansen <et al.>, 2012-02-13 by O’Reilly Media.  The code itself is
freely redistributable, and you are encouraged to transplant, fold,
spindle, and mutilate any of the examples in this manpage however you please
for inclusion into your own programs without any encumbrance whatsoever.
Acknowledgement via code comment is polite but not required.

The first part is license 'GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl'. I am not
sure about the second part.
the original license was '(GPL+ or Artistic) and Public Domain'.

Thanks for any advice.
Jitka

[1] 
https://github.com/Perl/perl5/blob/blead/pod/perlunicook.pod#copyright-and-l...

[Neal Gompa]

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:13 AM Jitka Plesnikova  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could you please help me to find the correct license for file perlunicook.pod[1]?
> It is part of 'perl-doc'.
>
> The license text is:
>
> Copyright © 2012 Tom Christiansen.
>
> This program is free software; you may redistribute it and/or modify it
> under the same terms as Perl itself.
>
> Most of these examples taken from the current edition of the “Camel Book”;
> that is, from the 4ᵗʰ Edition of I<Programming Perl>, Copyright © 2012 Tom
> Christiansen <et al.>, 2012-02-13 by O’Reilly Media.  The code itself is
> freely redistributable, and you are encouraged to transplant, fold,
> spindle, and mutilate any of the examples in this manpage however you please
> for inclusion into your own programs without any encumbrance whatsoever.
> Acknowledgement via code comment is polite but not required.
>
> The first part is license 'GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl'. I am not
> sure about the second part.
> the original license was '(GPL+ or Artistic) and Public Domain'.

The current SPDX notation for this package should be:

GPL-1.0-or-later or Artistic-1.0-Perl and LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain

[Richard Fontana]

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:17 AM Neal Gompa  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:13 AM Jitka Plesnikova  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Could you please help me to find the correct license for file perlunicook.pod[1]?
> > It is part of 'perl-doc'.
> >
> > The license text is:
> >
> > Copyright © 2012 Tom Christiansen.
> >
> > This program is free software; you may redistribute it and/or modify it
> > under the same terms as Perl itself.
> >
> > Most of these examples taken from the current edition of the “Camel Book”;
> > that is, from the 4ᵗʰ Edition of I<Programming Perl>, Copyright © 2012 Tom
> > Christiansen <et al.>, 2012-02-13 by O’Reilly Media.  The code itself is
> > freely redistributable, and you are encouraged to transplant, fold,
> > spindle, and mutilate any of the examples in this manpage however you please
> > for inclusion into your own programs without any encumbrance whatsoever.
> > Acknowledgement via code comment is polite but not required.
> >
> > The first part is license 'GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl'. I am not
> > sure about the second part.
> > the original license was '(GPL+ or Artistic) and Public Domain'.
>
> The current SPDX notation for this package should be:
>
> GPL-1.0-or-later or Artistic-1.0-Perl and LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain

Not under our current convention, which is to allow
'LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain' for public domain dedication
language that is merged into the
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/public-domai...
file. We haven't exactly documented this but we are assuming that
anything that would be covered by LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain
would have to actually use the magic words "public domain", which I
think was the approach under the Callaway "Public Domain" convention.

Rather, this license would probably be appropriate for the other new
umbrella LicenseRef, LicenseRef-Fedora-UltraPermissive, which we see
as sort of the successor to Callaway "Freely redistributable without
restriction". Jitka, please submit an issue or merge request for
inclusion of the text in
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/UltraPermissive.txt.
As an aside, I think it is somewhat unfortunate that we will probably
not end up submitting this license to SPDX for inclusion in the SPDX
license list. :-)

Richard