License tag for perl modules

[Robin Norwood]

Hi,

So there was a question about licenses for one of my perl rpms in
Fedora, and I asked Tom Callaway about it.  He explained that the
correct tag for my module, as well as any that are distributed 'under
the same terms as perl itself' is:

License: GPL+ or Artistic

So you may want to update the license field as you go (Not blindly, of
course...there are probably exceptions).

-RN

-- 
Robin Norwood
Red Hat, Inc.

"The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone."
-Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "RN" == Robin Norwood
> <rnorwood(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: 
RN> So you may want to update the license field as you go (Not
RN> blindly, of course...there are probably exceptions).

I think there may be a few modules out there which are Artistic
_only_, which it seems makes them unacceptable for Fedora.  I honestly
had no clue that the artistic license was considered non-free until
spot started the recent licensing work.

 - J<

[Ian Burrell]

On 10 Aug 2007 12:05:14 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; wrote:
>  >>>>> "RN" == Robin Norwood
> <rnorwood(a)redhat.com&gt; writes:
>
>  RN> So you may want to update the license field as you go (Not
>  RN> blindly, of course...there are probably exceptions).
>
>  I think there may be a few modules out there which are Artistic
>  _only_, which it seems makes them unacceptable for Fedora.  I honestly
>  had no clue that the artistic license was considered non-free until
>  spot started the recent licensing work.
>  
Why would Artistic license be considered unacceptable for Fedora?  It
is OSI approved.  It is considered non-free and GPL-incompatible by
the FSF.  But my impression is that OSI approved is acceptable for
Fedora.

Also, the Artistic 2.0 license is different.  It is OSI approved and
GPL compatible.  It is used Perl 6 and Parrot without dual licensing.
It should be tagged separately.

 - Ian

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "IB" == Ian Burrell
> <ianburrell(a)gmail.com&gt; writes: 
IB> Why would Artistic license be considered unacceptable for Fedora?

It's in the "Bad Licenses" list at the bottom of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

IB> Also, the Artistic 2.0 license is different.

Yes, as recognized on the above page.

IB> It should be tagged separately.

It isn't?  It sure seems to be tagged separately to me, according to
the above page.

 - J<

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 12:05 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>  >>>>> "RN" == Robin Norwood
> <rnorwood(a)redhat.com&gt; writes:
>  
>  RN> So you may want to update the license field as you go (Not
>  RN> blindly, of course...there are probably exceptions).
>  
>  I think there may be a few modules out there which are Artistic
>  _only_, which it seems makes them unacceptable for Fedora.  I honestly
>  had no clue that the artistic license was considered non-free until
>  spot started the recent licensing work. 
The fundamental question would be: Is this consideration applicable at
all?

Consider: Most perl packages are scripts and not linked against
anything. They "use" other packages.

Ralf

[Tom Callaway]

On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 07:14 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>  On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 12:05 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>  > >>>>> "RN" == Robin Norwood <rnorwood(a)redhat.com&gt;
> writes:
>  > 
>  > RN> So you may want to update the license field as you go (Not
>  > RN> blindly, of course...there are probably exceptions).
>  > 
>  > I think there may be a few modules out there which are Artistic
>  > _only_, which it seems makes them unacceptable for Fedora.  I honestly
>  > had no clue that the artistic license was considered non-free until
>  > spot started the recent licensing work.
>  
>  The fundamental question would be: Is this consideration applicable at
>  all?
>  
>  Consider: Most perl packages are scripts and not linked against
>  anything. They "use" other packages. 
So, its only applicable for those items which are only "Artistic" 1.0,
not for anything dual licensed, and not for anything which
Requires/BuildRequires something "Artistic" 1.0.

~spot

[Paul Howarth]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:56:55 -0400
Robin Norwood <rnorwood(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  Hi,
>  
>  So there was a question about licenses for one of my perl rpms in
>  Fedora, and I asked Tom Callaway about it.  He explained that the
>  correct tag for my module, as well as any that are distributed 'under
>  the same terms as perl itself' is:
>  
>  License: GPL+ or Artistic
>  
>  So you may want to update the license field as you go (Not blindly, of
>  course...there are probably exceptions). 
rpmlint (at least up to rpmlint-0.80-2) still complains about this:

W: perl-Authen-DigestMD5 invalid-license Artistic

The licensing page on the wiki says that "GPL+Artistic" is OK
(probably should say "GPL+ or Artistic" for clarity) in the "Bad
Licenses" table entry for Artistic, and since this is going to be a
very common combination, I'd suggest that rpmlint include this
exception in the license check.

Ville, should I raise this on the rpmlint trac, in Fedora bugzilla, or
is this email enough?

Paul.

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "PH" == Paul Howarth
> <paul(a)city-fan.org&gt; writes: 
PH> rpmlint (at least up to rpmlint-0.80-2) still complains about
PH> this:

Yes, Ville has indicated that he's fixing this.

 - J<

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 12:56 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote:
>  Hi,
>  
>  So there was a question about licenses for one of my perl rpms in
>  Fedora, and I asked Tom Callaway about it.  He explained that the
>  correct tag for my module, as well as any that are distributed 'under
>  the same terms as perl itself' is:
>  
>  License: GPL+ or Artistic 
"under the same time as perl" doesn't mean "GPL+ or Artistic",
but
indirects licensing to another package ("perl") - Consider what happens
if "perl" should change to a completely different license.

Ralf

[Chris Weyl]

On 8/10/07, Robin Norwood <rnorwood(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hi,
>
>  So there was a question about licenses for one of my perl rpms in
>  Fedora, and I asked Tom Callaway about it.  He explained that the
>  correct tag for my module, as well as any that are distributed 'under
>  the same terms as perl itself' is:
>
>  License: GPL+ or Artistic
>
>  So you may want to update the license field as you go (Not blindly, of
>  course...there are probably exceptions). 
I've updated the licensing section under PackagingDrafts/Perl.

                                 -Chris

-- 
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia