Spamworldpro Mini Shell
Spamworldpro


Server : Apache
System : Linux server2.corals.io 4.18.0-348.2.1.el8_5.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Nov 15 09:17:08 EST 2021 x86_64
User : corals ( 1002)
PHP Version : 7.4.33
Disable Function : exec,passthru,shell_exec,system
Directory :  /proc/self/root/usr/share/licenses/perl-Pod-Html/

Upload File :
current_dir [ Writeable ] document_root [ Writeable ]

 

Current File : //proc/self/root/usr/share/licenses/perl-Pod-Html/Pod-Html-license-clarification
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:22:10 -0600
Subject: Re: Pod::Html license
From: Tom Christiansen <[email protected]>
To: Petr Šabata <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Christiansen <[email protected]>, [email protected],
 [email protected]
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 <[email protected]> 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

Spamworldpro Mini