Simply using other Perl modules doesn't count. You may be bundling them with your own code, but your product is not composed of a derivative of their code, you are simply re-distributing their code without modification. Even if you do modify their code, by distributing it you are simply releasing your modifications under their license (the GPL). This in no way "infects" your application.

Generally the code is yours to do with as you please, unless you have cut/pasted code written by somebody else into your own application, at which point (assuming it's GPL'ed), it's illegal for you to re-distribute the result without GPL'ing it in turn.

Totally right, my take is that as long as you dont place a more restrictive license upon the GPL'ed components you are fine. So for example if you modify them then you may not place a more restrictive licence upon your mods as they then form part of the GPL'ed whole. If however you -use- them within your code (as in 'use' them) then your code can have what ever license you want.
--

Zigster

What we found was that, in order to avoid having to redistribute modules with their code, they had simply taken the relevant parts they needed from perl modules and simply included them, verbatim into their code. Now, I'm not sure what the licenses say about that, but I'm pretty sure that that particular practice is dead wrong.

As for this specific case, IANAL (ooo...), but I would think that as long as you're not selling the actual interpreter and modules, then you've got nothing to fear. You're allowed to sell perl code. Package the two parts separately, one you pay for (yours) and one you don't (everyone else's).

But just remember, once they have your hands on the perl code, it's kind of hard to stop them from deciphering it, especially if you're using modules which must be called by their names. If they really want to keep managed control of their source, they need to use a compiled language. In my earlier example, we actually did a fair amount of hacking on their code using their munged stuff, simply by tracking which vars went where.

As for this specific case, IANAL (ooo...), but I would think that as long as you're not selling the actual interpreter and modules, then you've got nothing to fear. You're allowed to sell perl code. Package the two parts separately, one you pay for (yours) and one you don't (everyone else's).

The GPL puts no restrictions on selling code (the linux distributors would be out of business if this were the case). The GPL is concerned with the distribution of software. Check out http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.

----
Coyote

As far as the GPL goes, you can attach any sort of license on your code that you would like as long as you are not including GPL'd in your own.

note: I am only commenting on the GPL. I am not familiar enough with the Artistic License to comment on it.

----
Coyote (aka: Rich Anderson)

It's even less clear to me how the Artistic License applies. I'm tired and all this legalese is confusing.

IANAL, but it seems a weasel could choose to use the GPL for modules that are dual licensed, and do whatever s?he wants, because s?he won't be distributing binaries.

It seems to me that the way to be ethical is to give something back. Share bug fixes to modules you use. Perhaps you could write some docs on how to use any modules you use and share them. Maybe your company could fund the developers that work on the modules that are central to your project.

Don't listen to me, I'm a moron.
TGI says moo with Minor Updates.

If you read item #1 of the GPL that you linked to it talks about the source code itself, not any executable or binary files.

The Artistic license talks about a "Package", which I'd say is pretty obviously to mean the entire tarball or zip file.

I'd have to agree with the sentiment that the ethical thing to do is to give something back-- it doesn't take much imagination to figure out some good ways to do that. :)