Eric- On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Eric Wilhelm <[email protected]> wrote: > # from David Golden > # on Thursday 19 March 2009 11:32: > >>>> I will look into this, but the problem with CC licenses is that >>>> they are not "Perl-approved" - that is, they do not have fields in >>>> Module::Build's license field >>> >>> You mean "not Module::Build-approved". Module::Build is obviously >>> buggy in this area. >>... I think that the latest Module::Build relies upon Software::License > > Indeed, it does. > >>, so someone could probably send some CC licenses to >>RJBS and lobby him to include them. Then they would be >>"Perl-approved" -- at least to the extent they are encoded into the >>toolchain. > > As far as rjbs and I know, Module::Build is the only build tool using > Software::License. Module::Install seems to have its own shortlist, > and ExtUtils::MakeMaker says you should see Module::Build::API ;-) (I > guess that would mean it copied and pasted a list from there at one > point -- but I'll let someone else look for an answer there.) > > Note though that you don't really need "toolchain" support for the > license -- just support in your authoring tool (because this is all > static data by the time it gets to the target machine.)
The problem is that the META-spec is based on the licenses in Module::Build - so you can't just put anything you want in META.yml, or your META file will no longer match the specification. > > --Eric > -- > Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to > predict the future is to invent it. > --Alan Kay > --------------------------------------------------- > http://scratchcomputing.com > --------------------------------------------------- >
