I'm working on packaging perl-RT-Client-REST, a Perl module from CPAN. It claims to be under the Perl license (GPL+ or Artistic) except for one class, RT::Client::REST, which it claims is under the GPL since the author copied those bits from RT, which is in fact under GPLv2 according to the web site: http://code.bestpractical.com/project/RT (Request Tracker)
Should the License tag be:
License: (GPL+ or Artistic) and GPLv2
or just:
License: GPLv2
or perhaps:
License: GPLv2 or Artistic
?
The README says:
...
Author: Dmitri Tikhonov dtikhonov@yahoo.com RT::Client::REST is based on 'rt' command-line utility distributed with RT 3.x written by Abhijit Menon-Sen ams@wiw.org and donated to RT project.
License: Original 'rt' utility is GPL, therefore so is RT::Client::REST. The rest of the modules are licensed under the usual artistic license. (I am not sure it makes sense to do this. Does GPL override artistic license? Someone let me know if you have a definite answer.)
The source code mentions that RT::Client::REST is under GPL:
./lib/RT/Client/REST.pm:=head1 LICENSE ./lib/RT/Client/REST.pm:Since original rt is licensed under GPL, so is this module. ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Queue.pm:=head1 LICENSE ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Queue.pm:Perl license with the exception of LRT::Client::REST, which is GPLed. ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Attachment.pm:=head1 LICENSE ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Attachment.pm:Perl license with the exception of LRT::Client::REST, which is GPLed. ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Transaction.pm:=head1 LICENSE ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Transaction.pm:Perl license with the exception of LRT::Client::REST, which is GPLed. ./lib/RT/Client/REST/User.pm:=head1 LICENSE ./lib/RT/Client/REST/User.pm:Perl license with the exception of LRT::Client::REST, which is GPLed. ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Ticket.pm:=head1 LICENSE ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Ticket.pm:Perl license with the exception of LRT::Client::REST, which is GPLed.
AFAICT these are where the RT::Client::REST class and derived classes are defined:
./lib/RT/Client/REST.pm:package RT::Client::REST; ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Queue.pm:package RT::Client::REST::Queue; ./lib/RT/Client/REST/HTTPClient.pm:package RT::Client::REST::HTTPClient; ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Forms.pm:package RT::Client::REST::Forms; ./lib/RT/Client/REST/SearchResult.pm:package RT::Client::REST::SearchResult; ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Object.pm:package RT::Client::REST::Object; ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Object.pm: package RT::Client::REST::MyType; ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Attachment.pm:package RT::Client::REST::Attachment; ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Transaction.pm:package RT::Client::REST::Transaction; ./lib/RT/Client/REST/User.pm:package RT::Client::REST::User; ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Ticket.pm:package RT::Client::REST::Ticket; ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Exception.pm:package RT::Client::REST::Exception; ./lib/RT/Client/REST/Object/Exception.pm:package RT::Client::REST::Object::Exception;
Thanks.
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 17:06 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
I'm working on packaging perl-RT-Client-REST, a Perl module from CPAN. It claims to be under the Perl license (GPL+ or Artistic) except for one class, RT::Client::REST, which it claims is under the GPL since the author copied those bits from RT, which is in fact under GPLv2 according to the web site: http://code.bestpractical.com/project/RT (Request Tracker)
Should the License tag be:
License: (GPL+ or Artistic) and GPLv2
or just:
License: GPLv2
IANAL, but I suspect that the combined work would be considered GPLv2, since Artistic 1.0 is non-free (and thus, GPL incompatible).
~spot
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org