Re: RFC: Test::Copyright

2011-06-14 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:37:00AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: Also, I'm not sure why the copyright statements in individual files need to match the general copyright statement - if a given submodule was last updated in 1997 and was stable since then, then I would expect it to have a copyright

Re: RFC: Test::Copyright

2011-06-14 Thread David Cantrell
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:25:00PM +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote: Experience in packaging perl modules from CPAN , suggests that most CPAN authors are woefully ignorant of copyright and licensing issues. Unfortunately I have been provoked into attempting to do something about this. I present

Re: RFC: Test::Copyright

2011-06-14 Thread Salve J Nilsen
David Cantrell said: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:25:00PM +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote: Experience in packaging perl modules from CPAN , suggests that most CPAN authors are woefully ignorant of copyright and licensing issues. Doing the Right Thing isn't exactly obvious/easy either, so I don't

Re: RFC: Test::Copyright

2011-06-14 Thread Edmund von der Burg
On 14 June 2011 12:22, David Cantrell da...@cantrell.org.uk wrote: It also has the problem that only people who care will use your module in their tests, and they will be exactly the sort of people who don't need your module! True. Perhaps this idea should live in the cpantesters' domain -

Re: RFC: Test::Copyright

2011-06-14 Thread David Cantrell
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:39:55PM +0100, Edmund von der Burg wrote: On 14 June 2011 12:22, David Cantrell da...@cantrell.org.uk wrote: It also has the problem that only people who care will use your module in their tests, and they will be exactly the sort of people who don't need your

Re: RFC: Test::Copyright

2011-06-14 Thread Dave Cross
On 06/14/2011 01:45 PM, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:39:55PM +0100, Edmund von der Burg wrote: On 14 June 2011 12:22, David Cantrellda...@cantrell.org.uk wrote: It also has the problem that only people who care will use your module in their tests, and they will be exactly

Re: RFC: Test::Copyright

2011-06-14 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Dave Cross wrote: On 06/14/2011 01:45 PM, David Cantrell wrote: CPANTS is over there -- :-) Actually, CPANTS looks a little broken. Its data is almost three years old. CPANTS data generated with Perl 5.010001, Module::CPANTS::Analyse 0.82_01

RFC: Test::Copyright

2011-06-14 Thread Nicholas Bamber
I simultaneously started this debate on perlmonks: http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=909453 and exactly the same points came up there so I am just posing my response. -- Nicholas Bamber | http://www.periapt.co.uk/ PGP key 3BFFE73C from pgp.mit.edu

RFC: Test::Copyright

2011-06-13 Thread Nicholas Bamber
Experience in packaging perl modules from CPAN , suggests that most CPAN authors are woefully ignorant of copyright and licensing issues. Unfortunately I have been provoked into attempting to do something about this. I present Test::Copyright. I would appreciate feedback not least on the idea. --

Re: RFC: Test::Copyright

2011-06-13 Thread Philip Newton
What's the point of checking for a copyright ending date that matches the current year? Or perhaps I should ask, whom do you envisage running such tests? The developer, or end users? It's good for the developer, I suppose, but useless for end users - if they install something that was last