On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> Roman Shaposhnik wrote on 9/19/16 10:05 PM:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I've always thought that Artistic/Perl license isn't
>> compatible with ALv2. But when I went and checked
>> I couldn't find it on the Cat X list:
>>    http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
>> in fact I couldn't find it at all on that page (aside from
>> an exception for auto-generated header files).
>>
>> Am I misremembering it being on Cat X list?
>
> Has an Apache  PMC asked to use it?  We historically only add to the
> lists when a project asks to use a specific license.  But yes, I'd agree
> it seems Cat X.

Yes. Apache HAWQ (incubating) would like to know. How difficult/costly is the
process to form a final opinion so we can document it?


I propose that it's the question:

    Are there issues with a license condition requiring renaming of files when modified?

I propose that there are no issues with that license condition. If we modify the Artistic work, we should ensure we rename any 'executables'. I would take that to mean changing the filename of any actual executable files (commands, .exe etc), or changing the module naming if a perl library (ie: equivalent to changing a Java package name - given I tend to think more in Java grammars). We should also seek, as always to contribute those modifications back to the upstream project.

Thoughts? Disagreements? Should we have a kind-of Category B in which the Artistic files are kept independent of Apache files?

Hen