* Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-02T22:55:46]
Announcement: I've just committed change 12024 to Module::Build for
creating a LICENSE file during the dist phase using
Software::License. To get such behavior the author sets the
create_license parameter to new().
In celebration of this
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Ricardo SIGNES
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken: is it possible to specify a S:L class directly as a license, now? I ask
because the existing license keys are ambiguous.
I noticed that, so I actually just provided explicit mappings for the
licenses M::B already knew
* Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-03T09:49:01]
I noticed that, so I actually just provided explicit mappings for the
licenses M::B already knew about:
Cool. You might want to have a look at Software::LicenseUtils, which does a
reverse mapping sort of like your forward mapping:
Ricardo SIGNES schreef:
* Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-03T09:49:01]
What I would like to do next is make it more of a pure pass-through,
so that anything S::L knows about can be fed to M::B. That might
depend on having a registry in S::L, or it might mean an author could
specify
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Dr.Ruud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suggestion for a core license.pm:
package license;
$LICENSE = perl;
1;
sub import {
eval sprintf q/*%s::LICENSE=\\%s/,
scalar caller,
@_ == 2 ? $_[1] : join ,, @_[1..$#_];
1;
}
__END__
(and Cuse license ... ;
Announcement: I've just committed change 12024 to Module::Build for
creating a LICENSE file during the dist phase using
Software::License. To get such behavior the author sets the
create_license parameter to new().
I haven't written the docs or tests for it yet though.
-Ken
On Thursday 30 October 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:13:24PM -0500, Ken Williams wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:17 AM, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So, in summary, here's my objections to the
current 'license' field in META.yml:
* poorly
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:36:08AM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Thursday 30 October 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
That's the bit where I suggest instead of saying, eg, frobnitz to mean
the Frobnitz licence you say frobnitz to mean the licence whose text
is in the 'frobnitz' file. That would
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shlomi Fish):
On Thursday 30 October 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:13:24PM -0500, Ken Williams wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:17 AM, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So, in summary, here's my objections to the
current
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Ben Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having the full text of the licences available in the distribution seems
like a good idea, though. How about making it so that 'make dist'/'Build
dist' creates the files with appropriate contents if they don't exist,
and
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 03:36:15PM +, Ben Morrow wrote:
Having the full text of the licences available in the distribution seems
like a good idea, though. How about making it so that 'make dist'/'Build
dist' creates the files with appropriate contents if they don't exist,
and throws an
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 08:03:10PM +, David Cantrell wrote:
What if my version of GPL2.txt has an extra CRLF at the end because of
how I cut n pasted it from the GNU website?
Or has the address changed, as they are wont to do.
Nicholas Clark
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:23 AM, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:36:08AM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Thursday 30 October 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
That's the bit where I suggest instead of saying, eg, frobnitz to mean
the Frobnitz licence you say
* Bill Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-31T16:12:01]
Instead of including a COPY of the license in every distro, how about
putting the URL into the META.yml file? (Or is it URI? I always get
that mixed up.) This seems like the sort of thing that URL or URI or
whichever it is would be perfect
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Bill Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think supporting options like other or mixed should resolve most
of these cases. Sure, automatic tools that use this field will be out
of luck, but that should be a fairly small minority.
This is exactly what I mean.
I
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:13:24PM -0500, Ken Williams wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:17 AM, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, in summary, here's my objections to the
current 'license' field in META.yml:
* poorly documented;
* limited range of options for licences;
* only
* David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-30T12:53:58]
I agree that the second point is a problem. I'd like to solve it by
delegating to Software::License. Anything it knows about should be a
valid choice.
All that does it make it Someone Elses Problem while still not solving
the
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:17 AM, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, in summary, here's my objections to the
current 'license' field in META.yml:
* poorly documented;
* limited range of options for licences;
* only one licence per distribution
The first is fixable so I'm not too
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:17 AM, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, in summary, here's my objections to the
current 'license' field in META.yml:
* poorly documented;
* limited range of options for licences;
*
I was wondering why no-one appeared to have read anything I said in this
'ere thread - and it seems my procmail rule to fix reply-to brokenness
was, errm, broken. Oops. So, in summary, here's my objections to the
current 'license' field in META.yml:
* poorly documented;
* limited range of
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I use Term::ReadLine and it picks the
Term::ReadLine::Gnu, is my module GPL now?
JR may neither know nor care, but I think I know and I'd like to hear
about it if I've got it wrong.
No. You haven't distributed
* On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Bill Ward wrote:
Perhaps when you upload to PAUSE without a license in META.yml it
could actually replace the META.yml with one that has a license, based
in input from an HTML form? Would that be too weird? I think it's
technically feasible.
So if the user doesn't
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Bill Ward wrote:
Perhaps when you upload to PAUSE without a license in META.yml it
could actually replace the META.yml with one that has a license, based
in input from an HTML form? Would
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Bill Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some other thoughts... is the license specified in the META.yml legally
binding in any way? If not, anyone using the module will have to look
at
* Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-26 07:10]:
I don't know and I don't care. Does anyone else?
I do, because it matters. I would love to be able not to care,
much as I would love to be able not to care about politics, or
about money, because I find all of these topics utterly boring
Gabor Szabo schreef:
I am trying to push forward simplifying and clarifying the
licensing issues on CPAN.
It would be nice to have a license pragma.
use license Perl;
use license AL/GPL;
use license qw{
Artistic_2 (and_up)
GPL_3 (and_up)
};
We already have
* Dr.Ruud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-26T06:28:44]
Gabor Szabo schreef:
I am trying to push forward simplifying and clarifying the
licensing issues on CPAN.
It would be nice to have a license pragma.
use license Perl;
What would this do?
--
rjbs
# from Ricardo SIGNES
# on Sunday 26 October 2008:
It would be nice to have a license pragma.
use license Perl;
What would this do?
Skip calls to any code which didn't conform to that license ;-)
--Eric
--
Moving pianos is dangerous.
Moving pianos are dangerous.
Buffalo buffalo buffalo
Eric Wilhelm wrote:
# from Ricardo SIGNES
# on Sunday 26 October 2008:
It would be nice to have a license pragma.
use license Perl;
What would this do?
Skip calls to any code which didn't conform to that license ;-)
Oh good. Nothing that could possibly go wrong
Ricardo SIGNES schreef:
Dr.Ruud:
Gabor Szabo:
I am trying to push forward simplifying and clarifying the
licensing issues on CPAN.
It would be nice to have a license pragma.
use license Perl;
What would this do?
That's up to the creator of the license pragma,
but it would most
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill
Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course not, don't be absurd. But when the user is uploading the module,
the PAUSE web interface could prompt them to select the license.
That fails for a couple of reasons:
1. PAUSE is not the arbiter of licences and
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan Rockway
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then again, I, as the author, don't really know what license my
distributions are distributed under.
I don't know and I don't care. Does anyone else?
I care only to the extent that a user needs something in
* Dr.Ruud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-26T14:39:23]
That's up to the creator of the license pragma,
but it would most probably be defined as standing for:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the same terms as Perl itself. See
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Bill Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another good point. One could put GPL in the META.yml but have a LICENSE
section in the POD that says same terms as Perl itself -- which one wins?
That's the very reason I want to get the license text out of the POD
and into
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Bill Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another good point. One could put GPL in the META.yml but have a LICENSE
section in the POD that says same terms as Perl itself -- which one
wins?
On Oct 26, 2008, at 10:24 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
The problem is people may add it to META.yml but not remove it from
the POD. For one thing, it would be nice to be able to see what
the license is when viewing the POD. Once the module is installed
META.yml is no longer present, and there's
Hello.
Bill Ward wrote:
The META.yml thing is nice but you can't make it required yet.
The recommended version of Perl for production use is 5.8.8.
It is 5.10 now (for a half year or so).
http://5.8.8. The version of ExtUtils::MakeMaker included in 5.8.8
distributions does not support
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Alexandr Ciornii [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
The META.yml thing is nice but you can't make it required yet.
The recommended version of Perl for production use is 5.8.8.
It is 5.10 now (for a half year or so).
Not according to perl.com
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Bill Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Alexandr Ciornii [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
The META.yml thing is nice but you can't make it required yet.
The recommended version of Perl for production use is 5.8.8.
It
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Bill Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Alexandr Ciornii [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
The META.yml thing is nice but you can't make it required yet.
The recommended version of Perl for production use is 5.8.8.
It
The META.yml thing is nice but you can't make it required yet.
The recommended version of Perl for production use is 5.8.8. The version of
ExtUtils::MakeMaker included in 5.8.8 distributions does not support the
license field.
Supporting it is nice, but you'll have to wait until 5.10 is more
* Bill Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-23T15:20:00]
The META.yml thing is nice but you can't make it required yet.
The recommended version of Perl for production use is 5.8.8. The version of
ExtUtils::MakeMaker included in 5.8.8 distributions does not support the
license field.
Gabor is
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Ricardo SIGNES
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Bill Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-23T15:20:00]
The META.yml thing is nice but you can't make it required yet.
The recommended version of Perl for production use is 5.8.8. The
version of
ExtUtils::MakeMaker
* Bill Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-23T17:11:09]
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Ricardo SIGNES
Gabor is not suggesting that it be required to upload to PAUSE, but that it
be required to 'make dist.' This change would, perforce, require yet
another new version of EU::MakeMaker et al.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Ricardo SIGNES
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Bill Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-23T17:11:09]
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Ricardo SIGNES
Gabor is not suggesting that it be required to upload to PAUSE, but
that it
be required to 'make dist.' This
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
* 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 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
53 matches
Mail list logo
