On 22 Apr 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> I'm not asking anyone to do that. :) That's a lot of work. Personally,
> I think that if either the testers or the upload processing just checked
> for a license statement in some standard location (a LICENSE section in
> the POD text, a LICENSE file, something like that) and nagged authors that
> didn't have such a thing, the problem would decrease in magnitude rather
> quickly to the point where after a year or two of module updates, one
> could probably easily enumerate the remaining modules without a standard
> indication of license and decide whether or not to do anything about that
> at that point.
I absolutely agree and I would think Elaine does too, so let's stop
at that and just get it done.
[ cc'ing cpan-testers, graham (for search.cpan.org) and andreas (for
PAUSE) ]
We need some more or less automated way of checking for a license
and nagging authors without a license attached to their distribution
and/or modules.
Either look for a LICENSE file int the distribution, a =head1
(LICENSE|COPYRIGHT) section in the module pod or some combination of
that.
Some combination of search.pause.org showing the modules license,
having cpan-testers nag the authors about it when they test and have
PAUSE nag the authors when they upload would be good.
What should we standardize on looking for? I would think looking
for either of the two ways to include the license I described above
would work well. Comments?
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen, http://ask.netcetera.dk/ !try; do();
