Re: Proposed Kwalitee tests: has_license and/or has_meta_yml_license
David Landgren wrote: I don't know how to distinguish between someone who likes to jumps through hoops and someone who cares about their modules. I do, but it involves reading what they've written instead of (for example) just rgrepping for the current POD testing flavour of the month. I choose to achieve the highest possible Kwalitee for my modules because it's a way of showing people that I care. Perhaps you'd do better at showing *people*, as opposed to simplistic scripts, that you care by aiming for high Quality instead of Kwalitee. I'm all in favour of adding has_licence, on the grounds that some people care about Kwalitee willy-waving and not Quality, and so it'll be a good way to encourage them to DTRT. -- David Cantrell
Re: Proposed Kwalitee tests: has_license and/or has_meta_yml_license
Chris Dolan wrote: In the last year as a Fink maintainer (Mac OS X debian-like package manager), I've come across a couple CPAN modules that have no license information at all. It's very frustrating. I've submitted RT bugs, but one of them has been fixed (thanks Ken Williams). To encourage authors to correct this oversight, I propose a new pair of Kwalitee tests. Both would be nice, but if either of them were implemented, I'd be thrilled. I'd prefer that someone else implement the test (lack of tuits), but if there is approval for the idea without a motivated implementer I will take a hack at it. 1) has_license -- check for the presence of a file named something like LICENSE or COPYING or COPYLEFT or GPL or ... (each test case insensitive, with or without .txt extensions). Alternatively, the test can be more liberal by looking for the string copyright in README, *pm and *.pod. 2) has_meta_yml_license -- check for a META.yml field named license. Module::Build supports this. That would suck, you may as well propose a Kwalitee bit for modules that use Module::Build. I know that the current alpha of ExtUtils::MakeMaker supports this, but until it is released as stable *and* module authors have the time to upgrade EU::MM *and* release a new version of their module(s), those authors will be penalised through no fault of their own. David These tests should not care which license is claimed, just that there is a license present. Chris -- It's overkill of course, but you can never have too much overkill.
Re: Proposed Kwalitee tests: has_license and/or has_meta_yml_license
On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:19 AM, David Landgren wrote: Chris Dolan wrote: In the last year as a Fink maintainer (Mac OS X debian-like package manager), I've come across a couple CPAN modules that have no license information at all. It's very frustrating. I've submitted RT bugs, but one of them has been fixed (thanks Ken Williams). To encourage authors to correct this oversight, I propose a new pair of Kwalitee tests. Both would be nice, but if either of them were implemented, I'd be thrilled. I'd prefer that someone else implement the test (lack of tuits), but if there is approval for the idea without a motivated implementer I will take a hack at it. 1) has_license -- check for the presence of a file named something like LICENSE or COPYING or COPYLEFT or GPL or ... (each test case insensitive, with or without .txt extensions). Alternatively, the test can be more liberal by looking for the string copyright in README, *pm and *.pod. 2) has_meta_yml_license -- check for a META.yml field named license. Module::Build supports this. That would suck, you may as well propose a Kwalitee bit for modules that use Module::Build. I know that the current alpha of ExtUtils::MakeMaker supports this, but until it is released as stable *and* module authors have the time to upgrade EU::MM *and* release a new version of their module (s), those authors will be penalised through no fault of their own. David What penalty? The whole point of Kwalitee is not to reward authors who jump through hoops, but to encourage authors to live up to community expectations. That includes good packaging, good POD and, I say emphatically, clear licensing. Anything we can do to encourage authors to more clearly state their license is a good thing. If that in turn means encouraging them to 1) use Module::Build, 2) upgrade EU::MM or 3) hand-edit META.yml, then I think that's a burden worth bearing. You're complaining that its too big a burden to clearly state your module's license? To me that's just crazy. To some people, the license is actually more important than the module (e.g. if I can only redistribute Artistically license code). After all, Kwalitee is not an entrance barrier to CPAN. It's a tool to let authors know what is important to the rest of us. Chris -- Chris Dolan, Software Developer, Clotho Advanced Media Inc. 608-294-7900, fax 294-7025, 1435 E Main St, Madison WI 53703 Clotho Advanced Media, Inc. - Creators of MediaLandscape Software (http://www.media-landscape.com/) and partners in the revolutionary Croquet project (http://www.opencroquet.org/)
Re: Proposed Kwalitee tests: has_license and/or has_meta_yml_license
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:19 +0100, David Landgren wrote: I know that the current alpha of ExtUtils::MakeMaker supports this, but until it is released as stable *and* module authors have the time to upgrade EU::MM *and* release a new version of their module(s), those authors will be penalised through no fault of their own. At least that's consistent with many other Kwalitee tests! -- c
Re: Proposed Kwalitee tests: has_license and/or has_meta_yml_license
Chris Dolan wrote: On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:19 AM, David Landgren wrote: Chris Dolan wrote: In the last year as a Fink maintainer (Mac OS X debian-like package manager), I've come across a couple CPAN modules that have no license information at all. It's very frustrating. I've submitted RT bugs, but one of them has been fixed (thanks Ken Williams). To encourage authors to correct this oversight, I propose a new pair of Kwalitee tests. Both would be nice, but if either of them were implemented, I'd be thrilled. I'd prefer that someone else implement the test (lack of tuits), but if there is approval for the idea without a motivated implementer I will take a hack at it. 1) has_license -- check for the presence of a file named something like LICENSE or COPYING or COPYLEFT or GPL or ... (each test case insensitive, with or without .txt extensions). Alternatively, the test can be more liberal by looking for the string copyright in README, *pm and *.pod. 2) has_meta_yml_license -- check for a META.yml field named license. Module::Build supports this. That would suck, you may as well propose a Kwalitee bit for modules that use Module::Build. I know that the current alpha of ExtUtils::MakeMaker supports this, but until it is released as stable *and* module authors have the time to upgrade EU::MM *and* release a new version of their module (s), those authors will be penalised through no fault of their own. David What penalty? The whole point of Kwalitee is not to reward authors who jump through hoops, but to encourage authors to live up to community I don't know how to distinguish between someone who likes to jumps through hoops and someone who cares about their modules. I choose to achieve the highest possible Kwalitee for my modules because it's a way of showing people that I care. expectations. That includes good packaging, good POD and, I say emphatically, clear licensing. Anything we can do to encourage authors to more clearly state their license is a good thing. If that in turn means encouraging them to 1) use Module::Build, 2) upgrade EU::MM or 3) hand-edit META.yml, then I think that's a burden worth bearing. My licensing terms are clearly stated in the POD, using the more-or-less canonical licensed under the same terms as Perl itself term. I am not going to use Module::Build. I've tried it but I prefer EU::MM, at least for the time being. I'm all for the concept, but I wanted to do something really basic with it for a new module a while ago. I forget the details, but after futzing around for a while I just found it easier to go back to EU::MM. Hand-editing META.yml doesn't work. It gets overwritten when I make tardist or something. If there's a way around that, I'm all ears. You're complaining that its too big a burden to clearly state your module's license? To me that's just crazy. To some people, the license is actually more important than the module (e.g. if I can only redistribute Artistically license code). No. I'm complaining that there's no need for two different Kwalitee points for this, that's all. I think one is sufficient (and a very worthy one I should add, in case I wasn't being clear, which I probably wasn't). David -- It's overkill of course, but you can never have too much overkill.
Re: Proposed Kwalitee tests: has_license and/or has_meta_yml_license
David Landgren wrote: I am not going to use Module::Build. I've tried it but I prefer EU::MM, at least for the time being. I'm all for the concept, but I wanted to do something really basic with it for a new module a while ago. I forget the details, but after futzing around for a while I just found it easier to go back to EU::MM. FWIW, bug reports and missing feature reports are always welcome. There is an active mailing list at: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/module-build-general Regards, Randy.
Re: Proposed Kwalitee tests: has_license and/or has_meta_yml_license
On Nov 2, 2005, at 12:13 PM, David Landgren wrote: No. I'm complaining that there's no need for two different Kwalitee points for this, that's all. I think one is sufficient (and a very worthy one I should add, in case I wasn't being clear, which I probably wasn't). Ahh, that was unclear from your message. I thought you were protesting the addition of a new Kwalitee test in general, hence my annoyance. Apologies for the misunderstanding. I originally advocated for one of the two methods of determining the license, not necessarily for both. Chris P.S. On a marginally-related note, I released Module::License::Report yesterday. Unfortunately, it's not immediately useful for Kwalitee because it eval()s code from Makefile.PL and/or Build.PL, and makes use of Module::Depends::Intrusive which does more of the same. -- Chris Dolan, Software Developer, Clotho Advanced Media Inc. 608-294-7900, fax 294-7025, 1435 E Main St, Madison WI 53703 Clotho Advanced Media, Inc. - Creators of MediaLandscape Software (http://www.media-landscape.com/) and partners in the revolutionary Croquet project (http://www.opencroquet.org/)
Re: Proposed Kwalitee tests: has_license and/or has_meta_yml_license
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:19:07 +0100, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Dolan wrote: In the last year as a Fink maintainer (Mac OS X debian-like package manager), I've come across a couple CPAN modules that have no license information at all. It's very frustrating. I've submitted RT bugs, but one of them has been fixed (thanks Ken Williams). To encourage authors to correct this oversight, I propose a new pair of Kwalitee tests. Both would be nice, but if either of them were implemented, I'd be thrilled. I'd prefer that someone else implement the test (lack of tuits), but if there is approval for the idea without a motivated implementer I will take a hack at it. 1) has_license -- check for the presence of a file named something like LICENSE or COPYING or COPYLEFT or GPL or ... (each test case insensitive, with or without .txt extensions). Alternatively, the test can be more liberal by looking for the string copyright in README, *pm and *.pod. 2) has_meta_yml_license -- check for a META.yml field named license. Module::Build supports this. That would suck, you may as well propose a Kwalitee bit for modules that use Module::Build. You surely mean *not* using Module::Build using M::B inflicts a huge compatibility problem on using the module on older perls Now for my real opinion, I think a module shall not be judged/qualiteed on the used build system. I know that the current alpha of ExtUtils::MakeMaker supports this, but until it is released as stable *and* module authors have the time to upgrade EU::MM *and* release a new version of their module(s), those authors will be penalised through no fault of their own. David These tests should not care which license is claimed, just that there is a license present. -- H.Merijn BrandAmsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/) using Perl 5.6.2, 5.8.0, 5.8.5, 5.9.2 on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00 11.11, AIX 4.3 5.2, SuSE 9.2 9.3, and Cygwin. http://www.cmve.net/~merijn Smoking perl: http://www.test-smoke.org,perl QA: http://qa.perl.org reports to: [EMAIL PROTECTED],perl-qa@perl.org
Proposed Kwalitee tests: has_license and/or has_meta_yml_license
In the last year as a Fink maintainer (Mac OS X debian-like package manager), I've come across a couple CPAN modules that have no license information at all. It's very frustrating. I've submitted RT bugs, but one of them has been fixed (thanks Ken Williams). To encourage authors to correct this oversight, I propose a new pair of Kwalitee tests. Both would be nice, but if either of them were implemented, I'd be thrilled. I'd prefer that someone else implement the test (lack of tuits), but if there is approval for the idea without a motivated implementer I will take a hack at it. 1) has_license -- check for the presence of a file named something like LICENSE or COPYING or COPYLEFT or GPL or ... (each test case insensitive, with or without .txt extensions). Alternatively, the test can be more liberal by looking for the string copyright in README, *pm and *.pod. 2) has_meta_yml_license -- check for a META.yml field named license. Module::Build supports this. These tests should not care which license is claimed, just that there is a license present. Chris -- Chris Dolan, Software Developer, Clotho Advanced Media Inc. 608-294-7900, fax 294-7025, 1435 E Main St, Madison WI 53703 Clotho Advanced Media, Inc. - Creators of MediaLandscape Software (http://www.media-landscape.com/) and partners in the revolutionary Croquet project (http://www.opencroquet.org/)
