[doc] perlgpl.pod: GPL v1 text might be outdated

[vaitkus]

Where

perlgpl.pod

Description

The GPL v1 license undergoes minor editorial changes from time to time without incrementing the version number. Examples of such modifications include the addition of links to the FSF resources or the change in the FSF physical address. The revision embedded in the perlgpl.pod file seems to differ from the revision provided on the GNU website (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.html) which is probably the latest one.

I have not thoroughly inspected the differences, but one of the reason the perlgpl.pod file should be updated is that it currently list the incorrect physical address of the FSF (51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA).

[jkeenan]

Pull request #23230 addresses this "Release Blocker" ticket -- but I'm not sure that it is really the best way to proceed.

To prepare that pull request I downloaded the latest plain-text version of the GPL version 1 from this FSF site. I then extracted the GPL-1 text from pod/perlgpl.pod into a draft file, opened both up in vimdiff and proceeded to edit the draft to conform to the download. As far as I could tell, 99% of the differences between the FSF version and the blead version were line lengths. The blead version lists a street address for FSF; the FSF version lists a URL. After spending an hour on this re-ragging, I realized it would have been simpler to just open up pod/perlgpl.pod and paste in the latest FSF version. But it was getting late, so I just let my edit stand.

More to the point: Do we really need to include the text of an old version of the GPL in the core distribution at all? Do the terms of the GPL absolutely require us to do that?

If not, and given that FSF is likely to do small edits from time to time in the future, would it not make more sense for us to remove the text of GPL-1 from the core distribution and simply provide URLs as needed to appropriate pages on the FSF website?

[Grinnz]

Yes, the text of the GPL 1.0 is the appropriate one to include in the distribution, as that is the version Perl is licensed under.

[jkeenan]

Yes, the text of the GPL 1.0 is the appropriate one to include in the distribution, as that is the version Perl is licensed under.

Okay -- but would a hyperlink to the FSF's posting thereof suffice? If we could do that, then we would be unlikely to have to revisit this issue in the future.

[Grinnz]

The terms of the GPL 1 require distributing a copy of the license text with the program.

[ap]

Fixed in 8a7f81f. Thank you @vaitkus for bringing this to our attention.