Remove license.txt

license.txt

@@ -1,71 +0,0 @@
-Set-Object used to be licensed under the Perl Artistic license, and
-the documentation still says so (I expect it being updated with the
-next upstream release).  Due to the artistic license not being
-accepted as free license by the FSF I've asked the authors whenever
-they agree to relicense the package and fortunaly they did, so the
-package now carries the same license as perl itself (which is the
-choice between Artistic and GPL).
-
-See also:
-  http://dev.perl.org/licenses/
-  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
-  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467175
-
-The relevant messages from the authors (Jean-Louis Leroy and Sam
-Vilain) are listed below.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-From: "jl" <jl@yorel.be>
-To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
-Subject: Re: Set-Object license question
-Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:51:51 +0100
-
-Hello Gerd. 
-
-I agree to relicense Set::Object under the same terms as (current) Perl 
-itself - which is probably the choice between two licenses: Artistic 2.0 and 
-GPL. 
-
-Cordially,
-Jean-Louis 
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Subject: Re: Set-Object license question
-From: Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>
-To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:33:23 +1300
-
-On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 11:58 +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
-> Sam Vilain wrote:
-> > AFAIK the original author has not responded to requests for relicensing
-> > under GPLv2.
-> 
-> You are refering to Jean-Louis Leroy I guess?
-
-That's right, of Sound Object Logic.
-
-> > Could get a notary public to serve them notice of the intention to
-> > relicense Set::Object as GPL under the requirements of the license for
-> > Tangram.  If they don't make claim, then it should be able to be
-> > relicensed, I'd guess.
-> 
-> I think I'll better try again asking by email first.
-> 
-> Given you apparently tried already to get it re-licenced I assume you
-> are fine with GPL, right?
-> 
-> What about "Catalyst IT (NZ) Limited" listed in the man-page?  Given you
-> are still listed as maintainer @ CPAN I assume this is the company you
-> are working for?
-
-Yes, I can speak for that copyright holder, and they are happy to
-license under any FSF-approved Free Software license, including the Perl
-Artistic/GPL disjunction.
-
-Contact Jean-Louis - if nothing comes back I might have to investigate a
-rewrite.
-
-Cheers,
-Sam.

perl-Set-Object.spec

@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ make %{?_smp_mflags}
 
 %install
 rm -rf %{buildroot}
-make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot}
+make pure_install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
 
 # clean up buildroot
 find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} ';'
@@ -70,7 +70,8 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
 
 %files
 %defattr(-, root, root, -)
-%doc Changes.pod META.yml README license.txt
+%license LICENSE
+%doc Changes.pod META.yml README
 %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/*
 %{perl_vendorarch}/Set*
 %{_mandir}/man3/*.3*