Some of you probably saw this on the perlxml list, but I'm including it
for those that haven't. The summary is that Debian doesn't want to
package Perl modules which aren't clear as to which license they are
under. Perl docs perlmodlib and pod2man are cited as suggesting the
current license, so it might be appropriate to change these documents
by adding the suggestion that module authors include the Perl (license)
version number (if that would in fact address the problem). It's a
pretty small change for the module authors, but it looks as if it would
make a big difference.
- Ann
-----------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 13:51:44 -0600
From: Ardo van Rangelrooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: perlxml list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Perl module licensing and Debian
Resent-Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:10:39 +0100
Hi,
Recently I tried to add XML::Filter::SAX1toSAX2 to Debian, but was
stopped by one of the gatekeepers of the holy Debian fault. His
claim was that a license simply stating
This is free software, you may use and distribute this module under
the same terms as Perl itself.
is not sufficient, and I quote
> Sorry to be pedantic but the only external files you're meant to
> reference in the copyright file are the common licenses in base-files.
> And saying it's "under the same license as Perl itself" is unhelpful;
> which version of Perl? What if Perl changes licenses? etc. I realise
> this may be an upstream thing; if so please ask them to clarify it to
> specify GPL/Artistic explicitly so you can do the same in the
> copyright file.
Yes, I know this only increases the image of the Debian people as being
"license nazis" (although as being from Europe I've got quite some issues
with being referred to as a "nazi").
The main problem is in delegating for the real license agreement to Perl
itself. But e.g. perlmodlib(1) and pod2man(1) even explicitly suggest to
do this. I don't expect the Perl community to change their habits overnight
just because some people say it's wrong, but apparently delegating for a
license statement is not a good idea. I lack the legal background of the
details of the why and how, and how it can be done properly.
So, as of now Perl modules with only the above mentioned license statement
cannot be added to Debian. This already affecting e.g. upgrading to a new
version of XML::LibXML which needs XML::LibXML::Common which is not yet in
Debian.
What I would like to ask from the authors of the various Perl XML modules
is to state explicitly what the license is (Artistic, GPL, etc.). I can
understand this very likely is a controversial issue and might not sit
well with everybody, but please bear with me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Thanks,
Ardo
--
Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo
GnuPG fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
_______________________________________________
Perl-XML mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
