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 about:
{
my %licenses = (
perl => 'Perl_5',
apache => 'Apache_2_0',
artistic => 'Artistic_1_0',
artistic_2 => 'Artistic_2_0',
lgpl => 'LGPL_2_1',
bsd => 'BSD',
gpl => 'GPL_1',
gpl2 => 'GPL_2',
gpl3 => 'GPL_3',
mit => 'MIT',
mozilla => 'Mozilla_1_1',
open_source => undef,
unrestricted => undef,
restrictive => undef,
unknown => undef,
);
sub valid_licenses {
return \%licenses;
}
}
On the right side, those are S::L subclass names. On the left side,
they don't correspond exactly to S::L's meta_yml names.
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 a class name directly, possibly omitting the
"Software::License::" prefix.
-Ken
