In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Golden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 disap
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
sever
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 li
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
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
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
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 e
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 a
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 l
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 l
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 t
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"
i
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
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 M
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 tool
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 ExtUtils-MakeMa
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 Sza
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)
The recent discussion(s) about quality goals and metrics got me to
thinking about what CPANTS is trying to do vs. what it's actually
doing. As a brainstorming exercise, I wrote down all of the software
quality goals I could think of quickly. For each existing CPANTS
metric, I decided whic
19 matches
Mail list logo
