Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added new license OpenLDAP 2.7. #66

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

manwar
Copy link

@manwar manwar commented Oct 30, 2018

Hi Team,

Please review the PR.
It adds new license OpenLDAP. I came across a distribution on MetaCPAN that needs this license.

https://metacpan.org/release/Alien-LMDB

Many Thanks.
Best Regards,
Mohammad S Anwar

sub name { 'The OpenLDAP Public License Version 2.7, 7 September 2001' }
sub url { 'http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin21/license.html' }
sub meta_name { 'openldap' }
sub meta2_name { 'openldap_2_7' }
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

meta_name and meta2_name must be from a fixed list of licenses: https://metacpan.org/pod/CPAN::Meta::Spec#license. For this license, I believe they should both be unrestricted.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @haarg

Thanks for your suggestions. I have pushed the changes.
Kindly review it again.

Many Thanks.
Best Regards,
Mohammad S Anwar

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually I believe it should open_source, not unrestricted, based on precedent (FreeBSD license in particular) and the description of meta1 keys in Module::Build

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The OpenLDAP license is obviously based on the 3-clause BSD license, but seems sufficiently different that I'm not sure it could be said to be OSI approved.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The SPDX website lists it as OSI approved, but I can't find any proof of that on the OSI website. Who would have guessed licenses are a mess…

@Leont
Copy link
Member

Leont commented Oct 31, 2018

The real solution is to add spdx support, I think we should merge that first before adding any other licenses.

@Leont
Copy link
Member

Leont commented Nov 11, 2018

This is pointing to version 2.7 of the license, even though 2.8 has been out for over 15 years. Is there any particular reason for that?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants