in reply to Re^7: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks
in thread Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks

ysth,

From the RPerl FAQ:

"This means ... you can't re-sell RPerl without the source code ..."

I re-read the Artistic license to make sure I understood your point. Is it truly inaccurate for me to say that "you can't re-sell RPerl without the source code"?

Yes I've read and re-read Artistic sections 3c, 4c, and 5. I'm honestly not sure.

Thanks!

Perling,
~ Will
  • Comment on Re^8: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 03, 2013 at 09:47 UTC

    Ahhh, the Artistic license, yeah, you can distribute binaries without source if you change-names-docs-trademarks... and document where to get the original source

    http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0
    3.c You may modify ... provided ... rename ... manual ... differences from original
    4.c You may distribute ... provided ... non-standard names ... document where get original
    http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0
    Distribution of Compiled Forms of the Standard Version or Modified Versions without the Source
    (5) You may Distribute ... provided document where get original
    (6) You may Distribute ... provided give source to original owner / buyers on demand

    Distribute means buy/sell/whatever

    Naturally I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be lawyer and this isn't legal advice and my sit-upon is itchy :)

[reply]
Re^9: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 10: Kickstarter & Performance Benchmarks
by ysth (Canon) on Dec 03, 2013 at 19:59 UTC

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_License; the original version is not an FSF-recognized free software license, there are some ambiguities which are corrected in the Clarified Artistic License and the Artistic License 2.0.

    --
    A math joke: r = | |csc(θ)|+|sec(θ)| |-| |csc(θ)|-|sec(θ)| |
[reply]
      ysth,

      I'm want to make RPerl available under the same terms as Perl itself so that RPerl and Perl source code can be mixed without worrying about what license applies to what. Does that make sense?

      Also, I want to write a 1 or 2 sentence explanation of how the RPerl license affects end-users, as I have already attempted to do in the RPerl FAQ. Can you please give me guidance on what you think would be accurate wording?

      Thanks!

      Perling,
      ~ Will
[reply]
      Also, it seems like there is some disagreement about whether a "Perl" project (like RPerl) should be licensed under Artistic v1 or Artistic v2. Can you give me input on that please?
[reply]
        If you are free to choose, that is, if you are not dependent on code that can't be relicensed, absolutely go for v2.
        --
        A math joke: r = | |csc(θ)|+|sec(θ)| |-| |csc(θ)|-|sec(θ)| |
[reply]

In Section Perl News