[rt.cpan.org #117955] LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm

[Roderich Schupp via RT]

Wed Jan 13 05:14:55 2021: Request 117955 was acted upon.
Transaction: Correspondence added by RSCHUPP
   Queue: Module-ScanDeps
 Subject: LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm
   Broken in: 1.22
Severity: (no value)
   Owner: Nobody
  Requestors: jples...@redhat.com
  Status: open
 Ticket https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=117955 >


Cleaning out old tickets...

[rt.cpan.org #117955] LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm

[Jitka Plesnikova via RT]

Tue Sep 20 03:20:00 2016: Request 117955 was acted upon.
Transaction: Correspondence added by jplesnik
   Queue: Module-ScanDeps
 Subject: LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm
   Broken in: 1.22
Severity: (no value)
   Owner: Nobody
  Requestors: jples...@redhat.com
  Status: open
 Ticket https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=117955 >


On Mon Sep 19 08:23:27 2016, RSCHUPP wrote:
> Am 2016-09-19 05:55:44, jplesnik schrieb:
> > Module-ScanDeps-1.22 has weird license declaration. While LICENSE
> > file
> > quotes Artistic 2.0 license, lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm  (and other
> > module) files declares "same terms as Perl itself" and that means
> > GPL+
> > or Artistic 1 (see http://dev.perl.org/licenses/).
> >
> > The current wordings implies that lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other
> > module) files are covered by GPL+ or Artistic 1 licenses and the
> > other
> > files like wip/scan_dlls.pl are covered by Artistic 2.0 license.
> >
> > Is that really what the author wants?
> 
> Who knows? I'm just the maintainer, not the original author.
> There was no separate LICENSE file until I moved Module::ScanDeps, PAR
> and PAR::Packer to GitHub. I agree that I picked the wrong LICENSE
> with
> the current "Artistic 2.0".
> What do you think about something like
> 
> https://github.com/libwww-perl/libwww-perl/blob/master/LICENSE
This license file is ok. 

> (without "This software is copyright (c) 1995 by Gisle Aas.",
> obviously).
> 
> Note that the wording
> 
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it
> under the same terms as Perl itself.
> 
> See L

The link should be replace by http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ to reference the 
license correctly. 


> in the source (and original README) is already ambiguous, as the given
>  link (nowadays) points to "Artistic 1.0", NOT to Larry Wall's
> original statement (as given in http://dev.perl.org/licenses/).
> 
> Cheers, Roderich

[rt.cpan.org #117955] LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm

[Karen Etheridge via RT]

Mon Sep 19 13:14:47 2016: Request 117955 was acted upon.
Transaction: Correspondence added by ETHER
   Queue: Module-ScanDeps
 Subject: LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm
   Broken in: 1.22
Severity: (no value)
   Owner: Nobody
  Requestors: jples...@redhat.com
  Status: open
 Ticket https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=117955 >


On 2016-09-19 05:23:27, RSCHUPP wrote:

> Who knows? I'm just the maintainer, not the original author.
> There was no separate LICENSE file until I moved Module::ScanDeps, PAR
> and PAR::Packer to GitHub. I agree that I picked the wrong LICENSE
> with
> the current "Artistic 2.0".

I think you should ask Gisle if he's okay with moving the distribution to be 
covered by Artistic 2.0, so everything can be made more uniform and "modern".

[rt.cpan.org #117955] LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm

[Roderich Schupp via RT]

Mon Sep 19 08:23:27 2016: Request 117955 was acted upon.
Transaction: Correspondence added by RSCHUPP
   Queue: Module-ScanDeps
 Subject: LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm
   Broken in: 1.22
Severity: (no value)
   Owner: Nobody
  Requestors: jples...@redhat.com
  Status: new
 Ticket https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=117955 >


Am 2016-09-19 05:55:44, jplesnik schrieb:
> Module-ScanDeps-1.22 has weird license declaration. While LICENSE file
> quotes Artistic 2.0 license, lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm  (and other
> module) files declares "same terms as Perl itself" and that means GPL+
> or Artistic 1 (see http://dev.perl.org/licenses/).
> 
> The current wordings implies that lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other
> module) files are covered by GPL+ or Artistic 1 licenses and the other
> files like wip/scan_dlls.pl are covered by Artistic 2.0 license.
> 
> Is that really what the author wants?

Who knows? I'm just the maintainer, not the original author.
There was no separate LICENSE file until I moved Module::ScanDeps, PAR and 
PAR::Packer to GitHub. I agree that I picked the wrong LICENSE with
the current "Artistic 2.0".
What do you think about something like

  https://github.com/libwww-perl/libwww-perl/blob/master/LICENSE

(without "This software is copyright (c) 1995 by Gisle Aas.", obviously).

Note that the wording

  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
  under the same terms as Perl itself.

  See L 

in the source (and original README) is already ambiguous, as the given
link (nowadays) points to "Artistic 1.0", NOT to Larry Wall's 
original statement (as given in http://dev.perl.org/licenses/).

Cheers, Roderich

[rt.cpan.org #117955] LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm

[Jitka Plesnikova via RT]

Mon Sep 19 05:55:44 2016: Request 117955 was acted upon.
Transaction: Ticket created by jplesnik
   Queue: Module-ScanDeps
 Subject: LICENSE does not agree with lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm
   Broken in: 1.22
Severity: (no value)
   Owner: Nobody
  Requestors: jples...@redhat.com
  Status: new
 Ticket https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=117955 >


Module-ScanDeps-1.22 has weird license declaration. While LICENSE file quotes 
Artistic 2.0 license, lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm  (and other module) files declares 
"same terms as Perl itself" and that means GPL+ or Artistic 1 (see 
http://dev.perl.org/licenses/).

The current wordings implies that lib/Module/ScanDeps.pm (and other module) 
files are covered by GPL+ or Artistic 1 licenses and the other files like 
wip/scan_dlls.pl are covered by Artistic 2.0 license.

Is that really what the author wants?