On 12 Mar 2008 14:08:36 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> "GS" == Gabor Szabo <szabgab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > GS> So if you do find a module with problematic licenses it would be > GS> great if you could check if CPANTS http://cpants.perl.org/ has > GS> also caught that issue. > > This is good news; Perl modules have often been a source of licensing > trouble due to missing or contradictory licenses. > > Please also note that in Fedora, "problematic license" applies to the > plain Artistic license, so if a package licensed under the original > Artistic license (not the clarified or 2.0 versions) and does not also > have some other license (such as in the "Same as Perl" "GPL+ or > Artistic") then it is unfortunately not acceptable for Fedora. For > example, Net-SinFP has 104.17% "Kwalitee" on the CPANTS site but is > not acceptable for Fedora because it carries only the Artistic > license. Thanks. Then I'll propose to Thomas and if accepted implement a metric called "packagable_by_fedora" that will check several things: The first thing it will include is a check on the license. I am not sure though if it should check "license is not Artistic 1.0 alone" It might be better to build a list of licenses acceptable by Fedora and check if the module has one of those licenses. In this case the starting list would be: 1) Perl (aka Artistic 1 + GPL) 2) Artistic 2 What others would you include in that list? Gabor -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list Fedora-perl-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
