uperl / File-XDG

Basic implementation of the XDG base directory specification
1 stars 0 forks source link

Wrong licence text #28

Closed mavit closed 2 months ago

mavit commented 2 months ago

The LICENSE file included with File::XDG says:

This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as the Perl 5 programming language system itself.

But then goes on to say:

  1. C or perl subroutines supplied by you and linked into this Package shall not be considered part of this Package.

However, the Perl licence itself says something different:

  1. C subroutines (or comparably compiled subroutines in other languages) supplied by you and linked into this Package in order to emulate subroutines and variables of the language defined by this Package shall not be considered part of this Package, but are the equivalent of input as in Paragraph 6, provided these subroutines do not change the language in any way that would cause it to fail the regression tests for the language.

  2. Aggregation of this Package with a commercial distribution is always permitted provided that the use of this Package is embedded; that is, when no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces visible to the end user of the commercial distribution. Such use shall not be construed as a distribution of this Package.

xsuchy commented 2 months ago

In other word. The license in this project is https://spdx.org/licenses/Artistic-1.0 instead of https://spdx.org/licenses/Artistic-1.0-Perl.html The latter one is traditionally used in Perl modules.

mavit commented 2 months ago

It looks like this was caused by a bug in Software-License, which is now fixed. For me, running dzil build causes a LICENSE file with the expected contents to be generated.

plicease commented 2 months ago

IANAL but I've made sure I have the latest version of Software::License and made release 1.03, hopefully this fixes it.

plicease commented 2 months ago

I'm also not the original copyright owner, and the license released by the previous maintainer had the same bad text. But I my understanding is that this is more consistent internally to the LICENSE file itself so 🤷🏻