Perl module licensing, the next step
Hi, I've been contacted by Ann Barcomb (see her message below; below that is her second message to me) about the Perl module license issue. I've put her on the Cc and would appreciate it if you could keep her on the list of recepients. So, what information do we feed back to the Perl community in order for them to "fix" their licenses. Thanks, Ardo - Forwarded message from Ann Barcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Ann Barcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Perl module licensing and Debian To: Ardo van Rangelrooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 02:32:06 -0800 (PST) Hello, Someone forwarded your mail to the perlxml list to me. I think it is important to get this information out to module authors (for example with a post to use.perl.org), but it is also important to have clear steps authors can take to 'fix' their licenses. Has Debian stated whether it would be acceptable for modules to add which Perl (license) version the module is available under? For example, would the following text (a minute change for the module author) be acceptable? This module is available under the same terms and conditions as Perl itself, versions 5.3 through 6.8. Also, if there is some way for module authors to inform Debian that the change of license has been made this issue can be addressed that much more quickly. I appreciate any information you may be able to add to your original post. Thanks, Ann Barcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - End forwarded message - - Forwarded message from Ann Barcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Ann Barcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Perl module licensing and Debian To: Ardo van Rangelrooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 23:03:40 -0800 (PST) Hi, > Thanks for showing your support to get this unfortunate issue resolved. Your post came right on the heels of a heated discussion in Amsterdam.pm over what Perl could do to keep from losing ground to other programming languages ;) Very timely. > Unfortunately, this issue goes to the core of Perl. E.g. perlmodlib(1) > and pod2man(1) explicitly suggest to use the license as it currently > is. Even some of the core Perl modules have this license. This is a > very big fish to fry. Hopefully Debian doesn't get burned too much. Changing the documentation in those places is going to be a lot easier than getting every module author to change her or his documentation, if only for the fact that there are a lot of module authors and even making them all aware of this will be hard. The core documentation, on the other hand, is handled by the Perl documentation project, which is easy to reach via mailing list (which I did yesterday). There was one reply, of the 'wait and see' nature. Information from Debian, rather than speculation would be quite useful at this point. > I'll ask on the debian-legal mailing list what exactly should be stated > for the license to be acceptable for Debian. Thanks. I think most Perl authors will find the entire thing a bit silly, but if it isn't much work to change their licenses, and the process is well-documented, people will probably be willing to do it. I'm a bit disappointed that Debian didn't choose to mention this matter to the Perl community (or did they?) rather than simply not packaging the modules and waiting until someone asked about it. > Someone should probably also contact the "core" Perl people. Are you in > a position to do this gently? If not, what would be the best means to > bring this issue into the Perl community without causing a permanent > rift between both communities? I'm not a member of p5p, although I am on the Perl documentation project. I do know most of the people who ought to be contacted about this sort of thing, and how to contact them. Maybe not the best position, but on the other hand, this project interests me and I'm willing to work on convincing people that Perl should not reduce the number of systems it is on if what it takes to be on a system is fairly trivial. > I'll get back to you. Thanks, Ann - End forwarded message - -- Ardo van Rangelrooij home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo GnuPG fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:25:26PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > I've been contacted by Ann Barcomb (see her message below; below that is her > second message to me) about the Perl module license issue. I've put her on > the Cc and would appreciate it if you could keep her on the list of > recepients. > > So, what information do we feed back to the Perl community in order for them > to "fix" their licenses. Well, there's arguments on both sides, but doesn't yet seem to be a consensus on whether this is a real problem or not. Clarifying it probably can't hurt, though. > This module is available under the same terms and conditions as > Perl itself, versions 5.3 through 6.8. Perhaps (taking the GPL as a hint): This module is available under the same terms and conditions as Perl itself, version 5.3 or (at your option) any later version. to prevent any possible license conflicts down the road, and the unnecessary implication that "6.8" should be updated with every release of Perl. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:25:26PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > > I've been contacted by Ann Barcomb (see her message below; below that is her > > second message to me) about the Perl module license issue. I've put her on > > the Cc and would appreciate it if you could keep her on the list of > > recepients. > > > > So, what information do we feed back to the Perl community in order for them > > to "fix" their licenses. > > Well, there's arguments on both sides, but doesn't yet seem to be a consensus > on whether this is a real problem or not. Clarifying it probably can't > hurt, though. It's also my impression there's no consensus, but what is the deciding enity in Debian on this matter: ftp-masters, the technical committee, ...? > > This module is available under the same terms and conditions as > > Perl itself, versions 5.3 through 6.8. > > Perhaps (taking the GPL as a hint): > > This module is available under the same terms and conditions as > Perl itself, version 5.3 or (at your option) any later version. > > to prevent any possible license conflicts down the road, and the > unnecessary implication that "6.8" should be updated with every > release of Perl. But this still does not mention explicitly the licenses (GPL+Artistic) and that seems to be the key issue. Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo GnuPG fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. On Sun, 09 Feb 2003, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> Perhaps (taking the GPL as a hint): >> >> This module is available under the same terms and conditions as >> Perl itself, version 5.3 or (at your option) any later version. I brought the issue up on perlmonks in a mediation, and Jenda suggested a similar clarification.[1] I personally would recommend making it exactly like the GPL's clause: This module is available under the same terms and conditions as Perl version 5.3 itself, or the same terms and conditions as any later version of Perl itself at your option. Primarily because I think it's clearer, and parentheticals are strange in legal documents. But I suspect that it would be interpreted as more verbose version of the clause that Glenn wrote above. > But this still does not mention explicitly the licenses (GPL+Artistic) > and that seems to be the key issue. That was one of the problems that was brought up, but it stemed from the fact that the copyright/license statement doesn't dictate which version of perl's terms the module is licensed under. Don Armstrong 1: http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=232825 -- Guns Don't Kill People. *I* Kill People. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpVK7qObmwT0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 06:39:13PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:25:26PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > > > I've been contacted by Ann Barcomb (see her message below; below that is > > > her > > > second message to me) about the Perl module license issue. I've put her > > > on > > > the Cc and would appreciate it if you could keep her on the list of > > > recepients. > > > > > > So, what information do we feed back to the Perl community in order for > > > them > > > to "fix" their licenses. > > Well, there's arguments on both sides, but doesn't yet seem to be a > > consensus > > on whether this is a real problem or not. Clarifying it probably can't > > hurt, though. > It's also my impression there's no consensus, but what is the deciding enity > in > Debian on this matter: ftp-masters, the technical committee, ...? The ftp-masters have veto power over packages entering the archive, be it for technical or legal reasons. You might be able to appeal to the technical committee, but I doubt they would consider the matter without some kind of consensus on debian-legal that the ftp-masters are wrong. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp3QQ7k59zxC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
> "Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Steve> On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 06:39:13PM -0600, Ardo van Steve> Rangelrooij wrote: >> Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> > On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:25:26PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: >> > > I've been contacted by Ann Barcomb (see her message below; >> below that is her > > second message to me) about the Perl >> module license issue. I've put her on > > the Cc and would >> appreciate it if you could keep her on the list of recepients. >> > > >> > > So, what information do we feed back to the Perl community >> in order for them > > to "fix" their licenses. >> > Well, there's arguments on both sides, but doesn't yet seem >> to be a consensus > on whether this is a real problem or not. >> Clarifying it probably can't > hurt, though. >> It's also my impression there's no consensus, but what is the >> deciding enity in Debian on this matter: ftp-masters, the >> technical committee, ...? Steve> The ftp-masters have veto power over packages entering the Steve> archive, be it for technical or legal reasons. You might Steve> be able to appeal to the technical committee, but I doubt Steve> they would consider the matter without some kind of Steve> consensus on debian-legal that the ftp-masters are wrong. You can always introduce a GR. I'm not even convinced it would be wrong in this case as there seems to be a complete lack of consensus. If you have an option that avoids introducing a GR yand is acceptable to you, please pick that option. We do not want to get into the habbit of dealing with small details through GRs except when other options fail us. But the GR mechanism is explicitly there as a way to appeal the decisions of other parts of the project or to make decisions when no clear authority exists.
Re: Perl module licensing, the next step
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You can always introduce a GR. This is fucking ridiculous; I've already explained twice what Ardo needs to do to get his packages past us and that's simply to comply with policy. I've already explained twice that the problems with the equivocal (at best) 'same terms as perl' ``license'' are not keeping his packages out of the archive. Why the hell is anyone talking about GRs and/or veto powers? *BLAH* -- James
