* Ralf Corsepius [07/03/2008 10:53] :
To put it bluntly: Perl-dists in Fedora are more or less community-only
maintained, i.e. inclusion of perl-dists in Fedora is more or less
community demand-driven => There is little demand for these remaining
12000 packages, probably because hardly anybody needs them.
I've got a handful of Perl modules that I've rolled into rpms and I
seriously doubt I'm the only one. How does one ask for a perl module
to be packaged ?
> > - Think about the licenses you apply. Write Free
software.
>
> Do you have examples you encountered where it is not so on CPAN?
I don't have a concrete example at hand, but there have been plenty of
such cases.
The RPM2 module took a long time to package because its license was
unclear (see bug #184530 for details). perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate had
a similar issue (bug #171640).
search.cpan.org always calls a module's licence as "Unknown" no matter
how clearly the licence is in the source code itself.
You might not be aware about it, but there are people who considers
the
original "Artistic" license to be non-free (One of these groups is the
FSF:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html)
To be fair, this page calls Artistic too vague to be qualified as free (I
presume this means it's equally too vague to be qualified as non-free).
Both the clarified AL and AL 2.0 are qualified as free and GPL-compatible.
Emmanuel