One Hat Cyber Team

Your IP: 160.79.110.143
Server IP: 15.204.235.159
Server: Linux srv.techlup.co.ke 4.18.0-553.5.1.el8_10.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jun 5 09:12:13 EDT 2024 x86_64
Server Software: Apache
PHP Version: 8.2.27
Buat File | Buat Folder

Dir : ~/proc/self/root/usr/share/licenses/perl-Pod-Html/

View File Name : Pod-Html-license-clarification

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist53147@gmail.com>
To: Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com>
Cc: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com>, marcgreen@cpan.org,
 jplesnik@redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Yes, it was supposed to be licensed just like the rest of Perl.

Sent from my Sprint phone

Petr Šabata <contyk@redhat.com> wrote:

>Marc, Tom,
>
>I'm reviewing licensing of our perl package in Fedora and 
>noticed Pod::HTML and its pod2html script are licensed under
>the Artistic license (only).
>
>This is an issue for us as this license isn't considered free by
>FSF [0].  Unless the license of this core component changes, we
>will have to drop it from the tarball and remove support for it
>from all the modules we ship that use it, such as Module::Build
>or Module::Install.
>
>What I've seen in the past is authors originally claiming their
>module was released under Artistic while what they actually meant
>was the common `the same as perl itself', i.e. `GPL+/Aristic' [1],
>an FSF free license.  Is it possible this is also the case
>of Pod::Html?
>
>Thanks,
>Petr
>
>(also CC'ing Jitka, the primary package maintainer in Fedora)
>
>[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
>[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense