Re: License of module "Perl" seems wrong

[Bruno Haible]

On Montag, 27. Februar 2023 21:58:13 CET Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 14:05, Bruno Haible  wrote:
> 
> > Hi Reuben,
> >
> > Reuben Thomas wrote:
> > > The perl module has a GPL license, but its only file, m4/perl.m4, has an
> > > "unlimited" license.
> >
> > The license of a module, in the module description, cannot be "wrong" since
> > that's the authoritative location where the license is noted.
> >
> 
> Thanks for fixing this!

Done as below.

> In this case, it doesn't make sense to me that a module whose module file
> is trivial and whose only contents is a file with an "unlimited" license
> doesn't have the same license. In general, I'd expect modules to have
> something like the strictest license of any of their dependencies.

If we were to do this, it could happen quite frequently that, through an
implementation change of a module, its license would change from a relaxed
license to a more strict license. This would be a problem for the Gnulib
users.

Therefore, we try to set the license of a module, hopefully once and never
change it, in particular never change it in the relaxed → strict direction.


2023-02-28  Bruno Haible  

perl: Allow this module to be used with 'gnulib-tool --lgpl'.
Reported by Reuben Thomas  in
.
* modules/perl (License): Relax to 'GPLed build tool'.
Approved by Jim Meyering in
.

diff --git a/modules/perl b/modules/perl
index 017ba57a37..6a27919845 100644
--- a/modules/perl
+++ b/modules/perl
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Makefile.am:
 Include:
 
 License:
-GPL
+GPLed build tool
 
 Maintainer:
 Jim Meyering

Re: License of module "Perl" seems wrong

[Reuben Thomas]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 14:05, Bruno Haible  wrote:

> Hi Reuben,
>
> Reuben Thomas wrote:
> > The perl module has a GPL license, but its only file, m4/perl.m4, has an
> > "unlimited" license.
>
> The license of a module, in the module description, cannot be "wrong" since
> that's the authoritative location where the license is noted.
>

Thanks for fixing this!

In this case, it doesn't make sense to me that a module whose module file
is trivial and whose only contents is a file with an "unlimited" license
doesn't have the same license. In general, I'd expect modules to have
something like the strictest license of any of their dependencies.

Re: License of module "Perl" seems wrong

[Jim Meyering]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 6:05 AM Bruno Haible  wrote:
> Hi Reuben,
>
> Reuben Thomas wrote:
> > The perl module has a GPL license, but its only file, m4/perl.m4, has an
> > "unlimited" license.
>
> The license of a module, in the module description, cannot be "wrong" since
> that's the authoritative location where the license is noted.
>
> I guess your problem is that you passed gnulib-tool some --lgpl=... option
> and got an "incompatible license" warning. If so, then the patch below would
> fix the problem.
>
> Jim, do you agree to this patch?
>
>
> diff --git a/modules/perl b/modules/perl
> index 017ba57a37..6a27919845 100644
> --- a/modules/perl
> +++ b/modules/perl
> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Makefile.am:
>  Include:
>
>  License:
> -GPL
> +GPLed build tool

Yes. Thank you.

Re: License of module "Perl" seems wrong

[Bruno Haible]

Hi Reuben,

Reuben Thomas wrote:
> The perl module has a GPL license, but its only file, m4/perl.m4, has an
> "unlimited" license.

The license of a module, in the module description, cannot be "wrong" since
that's the authoritative location where the license is noted.

I guess your problem is that you passed gnulib-tool some --lgpl=... option
and got an "incompatible license" warning. If so, then the patch below would
fix the problem.

Jim, do you agree to this patch?


diff --git a/modules/perl b/modules/perl
index 017ba57a37..6a27919845 100644
--- a/modules/perl
+++ b/modules/perl
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Makefile.am:
 Include:
 
 License:
-GPL
+GPLed build tool
 
 Maintainer:
 Jim Meyering