Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-DBIx-POS - Define a dictionary of SQL statements in a POD dialect (POS) Alias: perl-DBIx-POS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231774 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-20 00:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > that is, that fragments of code licensed under the Artistic license may be > > reliscensed under the GPL (as would be the case if someone opted to use this > > package under the terms of the GPL). > > This is where I don't quite follow you. What part of the Artistic license > allows this? And why would you consider the portion under the Artistic > license a "fragment"? That's a good question. The Artistic license is very clear about what can and cannot be done with the package, both as provided ("Standard Version") and derivative works... If we treat D::P as a derivative work of C::S, then I think this usage falls under the scope of clause 3(a): " 3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, pro- vided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stat- ing how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: "a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major archive site such as uunet.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package." Parts of C::S are aggregated (totally embedded, even) within D::P; and the author clearly states which parts, where they came from, and the original copyright. Furthermore, the author satisfied 3a by making such modifications freely available, etc. So, I'm certanly not a copyright lawyer, but that's my reading. > Note: I think we both understand that this is not a blocker on the package > itself because mixing these two licenses is certainly compatible. It's just a > matter of getting the tag to reflect the realistic licensing of the package as > a whole. Yep :) If we decide we can't go with the author's original dual-licensing as is, we can just term it Artistic and I'll take the matter upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review