in reply to Re (tilly) 2: licensing confusion
in thread licensing confusion

This helps, but a followup...

You said "And their answer is that if you wish to use LWP, your program must be GPLed" In this example LWP is "same license as Perl".

If someone only uses Perl ArtLic modules, can they sell the software?

I know MSVC++ or Delphi would be OK, but I would like to use Perl (I have 6 Perl books). Do you know about Python? --Their FAQ says you can do just about anything with it...

I am NOT trying to steal anyone's IP, but want to learn a new language and get the experience of selling a product to a bunch of "beginner" users. (The Perl community would find it too simplistic) (prev person asked about this...)

thanks!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re (tilly) 4: licensing confusion
by tilly (Archbishop) on Oct 30, 2001 at 09:36 UTC
    Sorry, I should have checked the licensing.

    Yes, if you include something licensed under Perl's Artistic License in your code, but don't try to provide any external interface to it, then you are in the clear. This is true even if it is dual licensed with the GPL.

    There are, as well, other ways to satisfy the Artistic License while still providing a public interface to some of the wrapped facilities. You can read the license terms for full details.

[reply]
      I PROMISE last question on this ;)

      You said "Yes, if you include something licensed under Perl's Artistic License in your code, but don't try to provide any external interface to it, then you are in the clear. This is true even if it is dual licensed with the GPL"

      But the FSF disagrees, because you also said "And their answer is that if you wish to use LWP(if it was GPL), your program must be GPLed."

      Even if you don't expose a GPL module to the outside world, the FSF might say that just calling some functions in a GPL module means your product is now GPL.

      Again, thanks a ton !!!
[reply]
        The answer is that dual licensing changes most of what the FSF has to say. :-)

        The structure of the GPL is that they give you specific permission to do things prohibited by copyright. Should you do things like modify and distribute the code, then you are assumed to have accepted the GPL because it is the only way you wouldn't be breaking the law. Therefore if you distribute, you are bound by what the GPL says.

        However when you are dual licensed, this assumption falls to pieces. You are distributing a modified version of the software. But you could be distributing it under either the Artistic or GPL licenses. If the GPL is unfriendly to you, then why wouldn't you be choosing to distribute under the Artistic license instead? So if anyone says, "The GPL doesn't allow this!" you just say, "I never had to, nor did I, accept the GPL. I am therefore not bound by it."

        Or at least that is the theory that Larry Wall came up with. (To the best of my knowledge he invented it.)

[reply]
Re: Re: Re (tilly) 2: licensing confusion
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 30, 2001 at 16:39 UTC
    You can sell a GPL product. You just have to make the source available for cost or less (ie price of P&P and handling, etc).

    Thats hardly too demanding and if you are selling to beginners won't hit your sales too badly while at the same time you get the benefits of more experienced users downloading it and using it themselves and possibly giving feedback.

    Bare in mind there is plenty of second-rate delphi, visual basic and even perl commerical software available. Are you sure you want to add to that?

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom