brian d foy wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Klausner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I added a few things, most notably the new has_license metric (thanks
again to Gabor Szabo for implementing it).
(BTW, there was quite a drop in the CPANTS game highscore lists, as lots
of dists don't come with a license (9064 to be exact)
Well, you should say that those dists don't come with a license that
you detected. For instance, all of my modules clearly state in the
documentation that they are available under the same terms as Perl
itself. They come with a license, even if its not explicity stated in
META.yml.
Furthermore, everything has a license, even if it is implied. Since
everything on CPAN is available for free, no one has to pay any fee or
enter into any agreement to use anything on CPAN. If we find a
distribution that says otherwise, we (as in the PAUSE admins) remove it
from CPAN.
How about some other ways to measure this metric? Let's not divide the
world into people who use Module::Build and those who don't.
Makefile.PL still drives most distributions, and, at least for me, I've
never received a complaint that dealt with a Makemaker issue.
Agreed, while the META.yml key is the simplest way, it should be
possible to locate the most common patterns for licensing, such at the
typical COPYRIGHT POD block that often contains "... is licensed ..." etc.
At the same time, if that POD block mentions a LICENSE file, we should
detect that the distribution actually comes with one.
Adam K
