Hi Rolf, I've de-CCed modu...@perl.org to avoid bothering them.
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 23:20:57 +0200 Rolf Holte <rolf.ho...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've made some scripts to harvest (web scrape) metadata on Digitalarkivet > (DA). Since the task is formidable I've split it into stages and use > several scripts for each stage, common "stuff" is put into 2 scripts for > reuse to keep scripts cleaner/more readable. These 2 scripts are always > "included" in my scripts, and are a candidate for a module. I'm thinking of > making these into 1 or 2 modules.The concept works on first 2 stages (just > need to code more the rest). > > Mainly have five questions (seek advice on these matters) > > 1) One or two modules? > [SNIPPED - no idea] > 2) Should it be a module at all? > > Since I heavily depend on database back-end should it be a module of its > own? I need to reuse code for many tasks (different scripts) in order to > web scrape metadata on the site. Is it more an App? > Well, do you want to write a .pm file (which is often a good idea) or do you want to prepare a CPAN-like distribution? Maybe see: http://www.slideshare.net/thaljef/cpan-for-private-code (There are more similar links here - http://perl-begin.org/topics/cpan/ .) > > 3) Namespace > > Not quite sure if I'm going to release all code to scrape site. I've put > code in several scripts which may or not be included along side with my > module(s). The 2 main reason's are it took me 4 days to scrape site first > time. Don't want everyone to scrape whole site just for fun. secondly not > completely confident that everyone would respect my licence. I'm happy to > share on non-commercial basis. But would like something in return if used > commercially If it's released as an app (working code for everyone) then > APP namespace should be used if I understood "pause_namingmodules". > Otherwise depending on one or modules I've been thinking of DIS::DA & > DIS::DA::DBI (DIS is the acronym for the Genealogy society I'm a member of, > and making code for. DA is a known acronym for Digitalarkivet (Digital > Archive of Norway). If one module DigitalArkivet.pm might be the best > choice? > DA could also mean "District attorney", "DeviantArt" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeviantArt ) and lots of other stuff so it's better to be more explicit. > > 3) Best practice for POD? > > As a "newbie" on POD, I've put the pod in between in code, reducing the > need for (extra) header comments on subs. The POD documents the code of > each sub, as a header to each sub. Most POD I've seen puts all pod at the > end of the file. (Both can be done, but is the latter highly recommended / > BEST practice?) I find it easier to write POD when I see what is going on, > also it forces me to write POD at once.. I could copy everything to the end > of the file, before "release", but then I feel I've got to (re)write header > documentation on each sub. The book Perl Best Practices by Damian recommends putting all the POD at the end, but there isn't a general consensus among the Perl community for it. I for once, am content with either way. Note that tools like https://metacpan.org/release/Dist-Zilla and https://metacpan.org/release/Pod-Weaver can help a lot with maintaining POD . > > 4) To CPAN or not to - Licence > > My first thought is to licence it as something like this: > > DA-DBI.pl by Rolf B. Holte is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Permissions > beyond the scope of this license may be available at > http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html. > > Why? I'd like to share code but not for commercial use? > First of all, note that I am not a lawyer ("IANAL") and "This is not legal advice" (TINLA). That put aside: 1. The Creative Commons organisation recommends against using its CC-by/CC-by-sa/CC-by-nc/CC-by-nc-sa/CC-by-nc-nd/CC-by-nd licences for licensing source code. So you may wish to use a different licence. 2. A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software licence may not prohibit commercial use. See: * http://opensource.org/osd * https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html Note that there's some provision against making some types of FOSS code proprietary in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft , but it does not equate to prohibiting all commercial use. 3. I recall reading that all the source code that is uploaded to CPAN should be FOSS. > Would that be OK, or do I have to use Perl/ artistic license to put on > CPAN? Can I prohibit commercial use? You can use any free-and-open-source-software licence, and you should opt to use the Artistic License version 2.0 (See https://duckduckgo.com/?q=artistic%202.0 ) rather than the original Artistic License, which the FSF considers non-free here - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html . You cannot prohibit commercial use, if you use Artistic 1.0/2.0. If you wish to do so, you should use a different licence *and* consider not putting your code on CPAN. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ List of Text Processing Tools - http://shlom.in/text-proc Don't worry over what other people are thinking about you. They're too busy worrying over what you are thinking about them. — Unknown Source Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
