What's the license of this project?

[ppisar]

Is this piece of software licensed under "GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl" combination or "Artistic-1.0-Perl" single license?

Many files, e.g. lib/Excel/Writer/XLSX/Chart/Pie.pm, claim:

All Rights Reserved. This module is free software. It may be used, redistributed and/or modified under the same terms as Perl itself.

According to https://www.perl.org/about.html, it is a "GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl" combination.

But lib/Excel/Writer/XLSX.pm contains a contradicting claim:

=head1 LICENSE

The Perl Artistic Licence L<http://dev.perl.org/licenses/artistic.html>.

See that the GPL-1.0-or-later part is missing there.

However, a few lines bellow:

=head1 COPYRIGHT

Copyright MM-MMXXIII, John McNamara.

All Rights Reserved. This module is free software. It may be used, redistributed and/or modified under the same terms as Perl itself.

the same file refers to the combination.

Similarly LICENSE file only quotes Artistic-1.0-Perl license text.

I guess all this confusion comes from your commit 5b04b4c where you deleted the GPL-1.0-or-later part. Is that intentional change of the license, or a mistake?

For me the difference is important, because e.g. for Fedora Linux distribution the sole Artistic-1.0-Perl license is not free enough and without the GPL-1.0-or-later alternative Fedore will have to stop distributing this software.

[jmcnamara]

Thanks for pointing this out. The intention is that license is the same as perl so "Artistic License" or "GPL 1.0 or Later". I'll clean this up and clarify. I'll add a SPDX header as well.

[jmcnamara]

I've pushed a fix for this to main. You can check to see if it meets your licensing requirements.

[ppisar]

Thanks. It looks good now.

[jmcnamara]

Do you need me to do a new release so you can package it?

[ppisar]

No, I don't need a new release. Your statement about the intended license has been enough.