Front page | perl.module-authors |
Postings from November 2008
* Ken Williams <kenahoo@gmail.com> [2008-11-03T09:49:01]
> I noticed that, so I actually just provided explicit mappings for the
> licenses M::B already knew about:
Cool. You might want to have a look at Software::LicenseUtils, which does a
reverse mapping sort of like your forward mapping:
http://search.cpan.org/src/RJBS/Software-License-0.008/lib/Software/LicenseUtils.pm
my %yaml_keys = (
perl => 'Perl_5',
apache => [ map { "Apache_$_" } qw(1_1 2_0) ],
artistic => 'Artistic_1_0',
artistic_2 => 'Artistic_2_0',
lgpl => [ map { "LGPL_$_" } qw(2_1 3_0) ],
bsd => 'BSD',
gpl => [ map { "GPL_$_" } qw(1 2 3) ],
mit => 'MIT',
mozilla => [ map { "Mozilla_$_" } qw(1_0 1_1) ],
);
That's supposed to cope with the ambiguity of things like 'gpl'. I'll post to
the cpan-metadata list about that sometime, although it looks like the problem
might be going away soon, effectively
> What I would like to do next is make it more of a pure pass-through,
> so that anything S::L knows about can be fed to M::B. That might
> depend on having a registry in S::L, or it might mean an author could
> specify a class name directly, possibly omitting the
> "Software::License::" prefix.
What I do in Dist::Zilla's license bit is rewrite '=Foo::Bar' to 'Foo::Bar' and
'Foo::Bar' to 'Software::License::Foo::Bar'
That allows people to specify a license class in the normal namespace or, if
they must, =MyCorp::License::MCPL.
I'd love to avoid having a registry, because it will allow people to specify
their own internal license and have all the code generate the right files.
They don't even need to bundle the library -- heck they don't even NEED to
release it to CPAN, because M::B will create the right LICENSE file. (...and
if they do release it, that's great too!)
--
rjbs
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next