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 is 5.10 now (for a half year or so). > > Not according to perl.com (http://www.perl.com/download.csp):
Please. if anyone wants to discuss which version of perl is stable or why isnt 5.10.0 marked as such, please open a separate thread. This is irrelevant to the license issue. >>> <http://5.8.8.> The version of ExtUtils::MakeMaker included in 5.8.8 >>> distributions does not support the license field. >> >> And they would not see error (as we have no means to modify EU::MM at >> their computers). Only when they upgrade to EU::MM that has mandatory >> license or to 5.10.1 (maybe 5.8.9), they would see this error. > > Yeah I misunderstood at first, I thought the error would occur at the time > of uploading to CPAN rather than at "make dist" time. There was such a suggestion on the thread but I don't think we should go that far in enforcing it. Anyway, even without any enforcing we should at least make the possible values clear and easy to use. What we need now is 1) moving the list of licenses from the MB::API to the META.yml spec 2) Adding the missing licenses to Software::License (the licenses that are in the API/spec already but not in SL) 3) Changing the META.yml spec to include more Open source licenses. (All the licenses from SL ?) 4) IMHO we need a way to indicate that none of the defined licenses fit your module. There is an option to call it "unknown" but IMHO some other word would describe the situation better. Maybe "other"? 5) There are modules that have parts with different licenses. e.g. DBD::SQlite includes third party code with different license. No matter what the relationship between the two (or more) licenses, we should somehow indicated in the META.yml what is the license. In general IMHO this is something we can never define well for all the possible cases so maybe all such modules should set license field to "other" saying that "I am aware of the filed but cannot use it to describe the license exactly". Gabor
