I am trying to push forward simplifying and clarifying the
licensing issues on CPAN.
Here are a couple of issues I identified. I'd like to get
your input on these issues hoping that we can have an
agreement and then the people with the commit bits can
implement them.
1) META.yml license field
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:09:16PM +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
1) META.yml license field is required.
http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec.html#license
says the license field is required but FAIK when calling
make dist or ./Build dist both EUMM and MB will happily
create META.yml
On Wednesday 22 October 2008, Gabor Szabo wrote:
I am trying to push forward simplifying and clarifying the
licensing issues on CPAN.
[Snip]
4) Module::Starter and similar tools should use the same list
(maybe taken directly from Software::License) to guide the users
when they create a new
Hi all!
I released File-Find-Object version 0.1.1 today with a security fix to a
potential printf-format vulnerability. The offending code in F-F-O-0.1.0 was
this:
if ($rc) {
printf(STDERR Avoid loop . $self-_father($ptr)-dir() .
= %s\n,
* Gabor Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-22T07:09:16]
1) META.yml license field is required.
http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec.html#license
says the license field is required but FAIK when calling
make dist or ./Build dist both EUMM and MB will happily
create META.yml files
# from Paul LeoNerd Evans
# on Wednesday 22 October 2008:
I think the tools
should not create a distribution without a valid license key.
Obviously they should keep installing modules without a
license in META.yml.
I think an outright failure for what is ultimately a non-technical
reason, is
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:52:27AM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
While that might be annoying (once -- for the author), the tool can't
get around that if it is a required field -- because any other behavior
wouldn't comply with the META.yml spec.
I suppose that's a fair point.
I'm just
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:49:58PM +0100, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:
Thoughts, anyone? On the name, the implementation, the idea,.. anything
else that comes to mind?
Nothing; anybody?
In that case perhaps I'll shove it up on CPAN then.
--
Paul LeoNerd Evans
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 4135350
On Wednesday 22 October 2008, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:49:58PM +0100, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:
Thoughts, anyone? On the name, the implementation, the idea,.. anything
else that comes to mind?
Nothing; anybody?
In that case perhaps I'll shove it up on CPAN
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Gabor Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6) In this mail I have not yet dealt with how exactly the license is
spelled out in the distribution (eg. LICENSE file) and in the
individual files (the blurb we have in the =LICENSE entries of
the modules).
Lately I've
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:51 AM, Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Gabor Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6) In this mail I have not yet dealt with how exactly the license is
spelled out in the distribution (eg. LICENSE file) and in the
individual files (the
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# from Paul LeoNerd Evans
# on Wednesday 22 October 2008:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:52:27AM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
While that might be annoying (once -- for the author), the tool
can't get around that if it is a
12 matches
Mail list logo
