module-build-general

[Module::Build] Re: Rejecting uploads without (an appropriate) license?

[Randy W. S. <Ra...@Th...>]

Adam Kennedy wrote:
> There's a few classes of checks we can do.
> 
> If the package has a META.yml, it should have a license field. There are 
> about a dozen legitimate values.
> 
> license 'restrictive'
> 
> The is an absolute positive match for a disallowed license.
> 
> A check covering the above case could safely be added immediately.
> 
> Beyond that you have three additional cases...
> 
> - The license value exists but is not a known type
> 
> - There is no license value in the META.yml
> 
> - There is no META.yml

There is a snapshot of how the license field in META.yml is used at:

   <http://thepierianspring.org/perl/meta>

     1 GPL             # wrong case
     4 GPL version 2   # invalid value
     3 GPLv2           # invalid value
     3 INVALID         # These have a url as a value
     1 LGPL            # wrong case
  3619 NONE            # No license field
     1 Perl            # wrong case
    50 artistic
    26 bsd
    61 gpl
     6 lgpl
    10 open_source
  1497 perl
     2 restrictive
    26 unknown         # invalid value: literal 'unknown'
     3 unrestricted

There should probably be a gpl2 & gpl3. Do we care about case?

Randy.

[Module::Build] Re: Rejecting uploads without (an appropriate) license?

[<and...@fr...>]

>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:51:10 -0500, "Randy W. Sims" <Ra...@Th...> said:

  > There is a snapshot of how the license field in META.yml is used at:

Very nice work, thank you!

I have also collected a few data from the DSLIP status. This is based
on what the authors fill into a form on PAUSE when they register a
namespace. It is based on modules/namespaces, not as META.yml-data, on
distributions.

  not registered                33389

  Artistic                        117
  BSD                              41
  GPL                             233
  LGPL                             46
  Standard-Perl                  1818
  distribution_allowed             18
  no_licence                       13
  open-source                      81
  restricted_distribution           8
  unknown                        1433

I'm currently unable to draw any conclusions but sure thing is, we
have many white spots on the map but also a strong fundament of
standard perl licensed stuff.

-- 
andreas

Re: [Module::Build] Re: Rejecting uploads without (an appropriate) license?

[Ken W. <ke...@ma...>]

On Feb 25, 2006, at 3:51 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote:

> Adam Kennedy wrote:
>> There's a few classes of checks we can do.
>> If the package has a META.yml, it should have a license field.  
>> There are about a dozen legitimate values.
>> license 'restrictive'
>> The is an absolute positive match for a disallowed license.
>> A check covering the above case could safely be added immediately.
>> Beyond that you have three additional cases...
>> - The license value exists but is not a known type
>> - There is no license value in the META.yml
>> - There is no META.yml
>
> There is a snapshot of how the license field in META.yml is used at:
>
>   <http://thepierianspring.org/perl/meta>

[snip]

I missed the beginning of this conversation, but since the Beginning  
Of Time we've rejected any value for the license field that isn't in  
our list of valid licenses.

My guess is that the weird license values in that report were created  
using MakeMaker or something.

  -Ken