Re: Automake: use of modified Perl modules & GPL

[Elaine -HFB- Ashton <elaine at chaos dot wustl dot edu>]

Richard Stallman [rms@gnu.org] quoth:
*>
*>Someone pointed out that the statement of CPAN policy could be made
*>more explicit by changing a couple of words.  If you are one of the
*>maintainers of CPAN, would you please raise the idea?

This has been on our FAQ for over a year now.
http://www.cpan.org/misc/cpan-faq.html#How_is_Perl_licensed

I can certainly reword it if necessary, but we aren't lawyers and I'd just
hate to get dragged into a licensing dispute over some abiguity propagated
by the FAQ blurb. Licensing makes me somewhat uneasy in our very confused
and litigious times.

*>Also, for the sake of eliminating doubt, I urge the maintainers of
*>CPAN to adopt a policy that each module must explicitly state its
*>license or licenses.  Even if this is only applied for new and updated
*>modules, over time it would do a lot of good.

There is currently a plan for something called CPANTS, a testing service
of sorts to test for the presence or absence of certian requirements.
However, I doubt if we will be technically requiring anything but
recommending. People are free to license at will as long as they aren't
trying to sell it on CPAN. 

Perhaps I could write an entry for the FAQ explaining the 1000 ft 
overview of the licensing types and issues that may go with them.

I still, however, strongly recommend good legal counsel to those whom the
nuances of the license matter greatly since each situation is unique. 

e.