Automake: use of modified Perl modules & GPL

[Akim Demaille]

Hi Richard,

We would like to have some advice from you about a license issue.  In
short, we would like to use a modified version of a Perl core module,
which means we need it to be GPL.  It is not _clearly_ labelled as
being GPL'd, but this is the most natural conclusion (see for instance
the 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.

As suggested, I wrote to several people involved in this module, but
never could get this modification.  Nevertheless, the consensus is
that the GPL does apply.

Still, we would like to have your opinion.  I include below the most
relevant messages.

Thanks!

        Akim


Subject: Topics

Topics:
   License of Class::Struct
   Re: License of Class::Struct
   Re: License of Class::Struct
   Re: License of Class::Struct

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> License of Class::Struct
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> 12 Apr 2001 11:25:03 +0200
>
>
>
>
> Hi!
>
> I would really like to have an answer on the following topic.  I've
> been stuck for 3 weeks because it is not clear whether its license is
> GPL or not :(
>
> Thank you very much for any kind of answer!
>
>         Akim
>
> > --- Begin Message ---
> >
> >
> >
> > Subject: 
> >
> > Re: 77-language-class.patch
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: 
> >
> > 09 Apr 2001 17:48:51 +0200
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > User-agent: 
> >
> > Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > >>>>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:
> > Akim> * automake.in (Language): New package, temporarily in this file.
> > Akim> Use Class::Struct.  (Automake): New package.  (%languages): New.
> > Akim> (&handle_single_transform_list): Use the language object's
> > Akim> `ansi' attribute instead of `$language_map{"$lang-ansi-p"}'.
> > Akim> (&register_language): Build and register the language too.
> >
> > Tom> Did the licensing question with Class::Struct ever get worked
> > Tom> out?
> >
> > The guy told me to ask to Jarkko, which is what I'm doing now :)
> >
> > Tom> I'm not sure we really want to distribute our own version.  That
> > Tom> seems like a pain.  For one thing, how big is it?
> >
> > ~/src/am % ls -lh /usr/share/perl/5.6.0/Class/Struct.pm          nostromo 17:01
> > -rw-r--r--    1 root     root          17k mar  8 20:17 
> > /usr/share/perl/5.6.0/Class/Struct.pm
> >
> > I don't think it's a pain: it is one things less to maintain, and it's
> > rather small!
> >
> > Jarkko, I include below a news I tried to send on comp.lang.perl, but
> > I think it never went our of my organization.
> >
> >         Akim
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > From: Akim Demaille <address@hidden>
> > Subject: License of the module files
> > Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl
> > X-Sent: 3 days, 21 hours, 52 minutes, 2 seconds ago
> > Organization: EPITA
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I would like to know under what license Perl modules are shipped, in
> > particular Class::Struct.  My problem is that I'd like to use it in
> > Automake, but Automake requires only 5.5 and 5.5's Class::Struct is
> > very unsatisfying (especially because of its lack of a `new (%)').
> >
> > Hence I backported 5.6's Class::Struct to 5.5, and it works great.
> > This was just a proof a concept.  Now I have to face the real
> > question: can I ship this modified Class::Struct with Automake
> > (different name, of course, and full credit to everybody, of course
> > again)?
> >
> > In other words, does the GPL also applies to modules?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >         Akim
> >
> > PS/ Please, Cc the answer to me as I fear my organization has problems
> > with some `foreign' newsgroups.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- End Message ---
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: License of Class::Struct
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:00:42 -0500
>
>
>
>
> Akim Demaille address@hidden quoth:
> *>Jarkko, I include below a news I tried to send on comp.lang.perl, but
> *>I think it never went our of my organization.
>
> comp.lang.perl split off into comp.lang.perl.misc, .modules, .moderated
> and .tk a while back. Check your newsfeed provider to see if they carry
> them.
>
> *>In other words, does the GPL also applies to modules?
>
> Yes. With rare exception, the Perl distribution is covered by both the
> Artistic License or the GPL, whichever is more appropriate for your needs
> and it doesn't sound like you would be in conflict with either of them.
>
> e.
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: License of Class::Struct
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> 12 Apr 2001 16:18:38 +0200
>
>
>
>
> Hi Elaine!
>
>
> It's good to finally have news about this issue!
>
> | Akim Demaille address@hidden quoth:
> | *>Jarkko, I include below a news I tried to send on comp.lang.perl, but
> | *>I think it never went out of my organization.
> | 
> | comp.lang.perl split off into comp.lang.perl.misc, .modules, .moderated
> | and .tk a while back. Check your newsfeed provider to see if they carry
> | them.
>
> Aaaaaarg!  Does it mean comp.lang.perl is really dead and should not
> exist?  I can see it from here, but its sole content is the news I
> sent a week ago :)
>
>
> | *>In other words, does the GPL also applies to modules?
> | 
> | Yes. With rare exception, the Perl distribution is covered by both the
> | Artistic License or the GPL, whichever is more appropriate for your needs
> | and it doesn't sound like you would be in conflict with either of them.
>
> Would it be possible that someone include a few words about this in
> Class::Struct?  I would feel much more comfortable with that.
>
> In fact, I'm a bit worried by your words: you said
>
>         _With rare exception_, the Perl distribution is covered by
>         both the Artistic License or the GPL
>
> I would like to have read
>
>         _Unless stated otherwise_, the Perl distribution is covered by
>         both the Artistic License or the GPL
>
> :)
>
>
>
> Tom, is this enough for us to use it?
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: License of Class::Struct
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> 14 Apr 2001 12:30:08 -0600
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Akim> Tom, is this enough for us to use it?
>
> I don't know.
> I think we have to ask RMS.
> Could you do that?
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---