brian d foy wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Klausner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I added a few things, most notably the new has_license metric (thanks
again to Gabor Szabo for implementing it).
(BTW, there was quite a drop in the CPANTS game highscore lists, as lots
of dists don't
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Agreed, while the META.yml key is the simplest way, it should be
possible to locate the most common patterns for licensing, such at the
typical COPYRIGHT POD block that often contains ... is licensed ... etc.
Or licenced. Please remember to take account of such a common
David Cantrell wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Agreed, while the META.yml key is the simplest way, it should be
possible to locate the most common patterns for licensing, such at the
typical COPYRIGHT POD block that often contains ... is licensed ...
etc.
Or licenced. Please remember to take
On Sep 14, 2006, at 4:36 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Agreed, while the META.yml key is the simplest way, it should be
possible to locate the most common patterns for licensing, such at
the typical COPYRIGHT POD block that often contains ... is
licensed ... etc.
Or
On 9/14/06, Chris Dolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Advocacy to get popular modules to state their licenses more
prominently
* Advocacy to get modules with inconsistently stated licenses (e.g.
DSLIP vs. POD) corrected
I think if we can include it in the CPANTS tests so there might be
Hi!
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:07:28PM -0500, Chris Dolan wrote:
I posted all of my thoughts on the Perl-QA wiki here:
http://perl-qa.yi.org/index.php/CPANTS_Quality_Goals
Cool!
I added a few things, most notably the new has_license metric (thanks
again to Gabor Szabo for implementing it).
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:07:28PM -0500, Chris Dolan wrote:
I posted all of my thoughts on the Perl-QA wiki here:
http://perl-qa.yi.org/index.php/CPANTS_Quality_Goals
Cool!
I added a few things, most notably the new has_license metric (thanks
again to Gabor
Hi!
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 02:24:16PM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
Oww, that includes all of mine, even though they state clearly in the
docs that they are distributed under the perl license.
I assume this looks at the META.yml license key? I guess it's time to
take
On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
Maybe this metric should even check if there's a license in META.yml
AND a pod heading namen LICENSE, so that humans and tools
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
If you're going that way, also check for a qr/LICENSE/i file in the
distribution directory.
Maybe this metric should even check if there's a license in
On Sep 13, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
Maybe this metric should even check if there's a license in META.yml
AND a
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 16:06:42 +0300, Gabor Szabo wrote:
It should also check if the license field in META.yml is one of the
'approved' licenses, I guess this would be the list of words that can be
used in Module::Build.
This list is lame, it's not a canonical format. For example perl
is
On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, the metric currently checks if there's a 'license' field in
META.yml
META.yml is supposed to get most of distribution information in a
format that it is safe and comprehensible. No need for further
heuristics. It is a good thing that
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Klausner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I added a few things, most notably the new has_license metric (thanks
again to Gabor Szabo for implementing it).
(BTW, there was quite a drop in the CPANTS game highscore lists, as lots
of dists don't come with a license
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Adriano
Ferreira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
Tell one place where people should look to have
brian d foy wrote:
Thinking about this further and talking to a few people about it, the
only place that makes any sense is the source code file itself. After
installation, the rest of the distribution will disappear. The license
has to stay with the source.
Nit -- .pod files also stay around
On 9/13/06, brian d foy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Adriano
Ferreira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
17 matches
Mail list logo