>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> I was sent a bunch of previous messages, which did not make
Richard> it very clear who was saying what and why. I thought perhaps
Richard> those words were the statement used on CPAN itself to say
Richard> what the licenses are. If that is the case, then they ought
Richard> to be clarified--they should give a reliable recipe to tell
Richard> what the license of any package is.
This is what the CPAN writes:
http://www.cpan.org/misc/cpan-faq.html#How_is_Perl_licensed
How are Perl and the CPAN modules licensed?
Most, though not all, modules on CPAN are licensed under the GNU
Public License (GPL) or the Artistic license and should be stated in
the documentation that accompanies the module itself. If the license
is not specifically stated in the module, you can always write the
author to clarify the issue for you. Also, the text of the Artistic
license and the GNU Public License are included in the root directory
of the source distribution.
I apologize if I caused some confusion, but I was completely unable to
decide whether it was OK or not to apply the GPL to Class::Struct, and
I needed to know. And no answer was absolute. What I wanted was to
do what the text above suggests:
If the license is not specifically stated in the module, you can
always write the author to clarify the issue for you.
but no one person agreed being the `author' of the module, and no one
would take the responsibility of stating the license in the file
itself.
Now the situation seems clearer, the GPL does apply, and I'm fine with
this. Thanks!
Akim
