Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591812 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell <iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-17 23:41:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > The licensing here is a little confused, as perlbrew contains HTTP::Lite... > or did? Makefile.PL says "same as Perl", as does the Changelog entries; > LICENSE in the root says "MIT", as does lib/App/perlbrew.pm. > > If it actually includes HTTP::Lite, then it will have to be Perl (or GPL+ at > least). If not, then it can be MIT. Everything else here looks good; I hate > to say it, but I think we need to get some sort of clarification from the > author; the statement of license in perlbrew.pm controls here. Good catch. It can be built in "author" mode which does indeed embed HTTP::Lite (and App::perlbrew) into a single perlbrew script. Then the whole thing is "same as Perl" Or it can be built and installed normally and simply requires HTTP::Lite. In which case, it's MIT. This commit http://github.com/gugod/App-perlbrew/commit/8eeb3507cc56bea1fa1db2e0060bfb48553621d3 seems to make the author's intentions clearer. And many of author's other modules are also MIT. Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perlbrew.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perlbrew-0.06-2.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review