[Bug 231774] Review Request: perl-DBIx-POS - Define a dictionary of SQL statements in a POD dialect (POS)

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: perl-DBIx-POS - Define a dictionary of SQL statements in a POD dialect (POS)
Alias: perl-DBIx-POS

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231774





------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu  2007-04-20 00:34 EST -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > that is, that fragments of code licensed under the Artistic license may be 
> > reliscensed under the GPL (as would be the case if someone opted to use this
> > package under the terms of the GPL). 
> 
> This is where I don't quite follow you.  What part of the Artistic license
> allows this?  And why would you consider the portion under the Artistic 
> license a "fragment"?

That's a good question.  The Artistic license is very clear about what can and
cannot be done with the package, both as provided ("Standard Version") and
derivative works...  If we treat D::P as a derivative work of C::S, then I think
this usage falls under the scope of clause 3(a):

"       3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, pro-
           vided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stat-
           ing how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at
           least ONE of the following:

           "a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make
               them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to
               Usenet or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on
               a major archive site such as uunet.uu.net, or by allowing the
               Copyright Holder to include your modifications in the Standard
               Version of the Package."

Parts of C::S are aggregated (totally embedded, even) within D::P; and the
author clearly states which parts, where they came from, and the original
copyright.  Furthermore, the author satisfied 3a by making such modifications
freely available, etc.

So, I'm certanly not a copyright lawyer, but that's my reading.

> Note:  I think we both understand that this is not a blocker on the package
> itself because mixing these two licenses is certainly compatible.  It's just a
> matter of getting the tag to reflect the realistic licensing of the package as 
> a whole.

Yep :)  If we decide we can't go with the author's original dual-licensing as
is, we can just term it Artistic and I'll take the matter upstream.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.