Re: Automake: use of modified Perl modules & GPL

[Richard Stallman]

    What could we do to make 'unless stated otherwise, CPAN modules and
    distributions are covered by the GPL and AL. When in doubt, email the
    author.' more clear?

That is not what it actually says.  Thanks to Akim, I now see
what it actually says:

      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.

This doesn't use the words "unless stated otherwise", and as a result,
it does not really commit itself about the case where a module does not
explicitly state a license.  It just says "maybe".

As Akim explained, it is not so easy to "write the author"; in fact,
it can be hard to find anyone who admits to being "the author".
(Besides which, the author may have disappeared from the net; 20 years
from now, many of these authors may be dead.)

The way to make the situation really clear is to put a license
statement in each module.  If it is the case that every module on CPAN
which does not state a license is released under GPL | Artistic, like
Perl, then add the appropriate notice (just as in Perl) to each module
on CPAN which states no license.

But Russ Allbery suggests that this may not in fact be the case--that
it is not clear that every module on CPAN which does not state a
license is released under GPL | Artistic.  If he is right, each module
which lacks a notice is a problem waiting to happen.  Some users will
make assumptions about its license, assumptions which could be
mistaken and might eventually get them in legal trouble.  Meanwhile, a
series of other users will write to "the author" for the same
clarification.

For CPAN to serve the community well, it should clear up these problems.

First of all, make sure no new problems are created.  CPAN should
require each newly posted or updated module to contain an explicit
license statement.

Second, CPAN should clear up the existing problems.  Since this will
require work, it may take time.  That is ok--better to fix the problem
slowly than not at all.
  
In certain cases, where you know the licenses of certain modules, you
can put in explicit statements yourselves, following statements from
the author.  Otherwise, I suggest moving the problem modules outside
of the public tree, and inviting their authors to resubmit them.  If
you make a well-publicized announcement, you won't need to send mail
to all the authors, because most of them will see the announcement.
This should be easy enough to be feasible.

Russ wrote:

      I'm not sure if such a requirement would be
    workable within the current way that CPAN is structured.

If the license of a module is not clear, that defeats the whole
purpose of putting it on CPAN.  It becomes a cause of confusion.  When
the operators of CPAN recognize how this undermines the good results
CPAN aims for, I am sure they will find a way to get this job done.
Where there's a will, there's a way.