Re: The Perl Foundation Wants to Hear From You

I would like to make a suggestion as to something TPF could do for the Perl community. (Please let me know if you think I should post this elsewhere, it didn't seem appropriate to post it as a comment on the foundation blog).

Based in part on bits of an ongoing thread here on PM, I think we could do with some clarification regarding the legal and ethical requirements for reusing CPAN and Perl resources in commercial environments. Could TPF maybe get together with a lawyer (from the EFF?) and put together a document which gives answers to the following questions in a non-legalese language (i.e. understandable by a programmer who is not generally interested in legal matters):

Can I copy a piece of code from a CPAN module and integrate it into my own or my companies code without copyright attribution to the module author?
If the answer to 1. depends on the volume of code I copy, how much can I copy before copyright attribution becomes necessary?
Can I use CPAN modules (or parts thereof) in a commercial and closed code-base? Do I have any obligations towards the author in that case? What are these obligations?
What is the status of CPAN modules which do not include a license file/statement? Are these implicitly under a certain license? Do I need to treat these modules any differently than I would modules which contain a license file?
What constitutes a copyrightable piece of Perl code? Is a popular technique like the Schwartzian Transform copyrightable?
What difference regarding above questions does it make whether the module is licensed under the GPL or Perl Artistic License?

These are just questions that arose from that thread and seem to not have a clear and unambiguous answer by an authoritative source. If this proposal were accepted it would probably be a good idea to ask the Perl community what questions they have.

The purpose of this proposal is not to create further rules or legalese for programmers to abide to. Rather it seems important to me to make the answer to these questions clearly understood so that conscientious Perl programmers can go about their normal business without having to worry about hidden legal (or moral) trapdoors. BrowserUK has stated that my interpretation of these issues as I understand them would make it impossible to use Perl in a commercial project. I think that's the wrong conclusion to jump to, but it would be helpful to have further clarifications to make sure.

I understand the difficulty of giving binding legal advice on such general terms and know that probably no lawyer will commit to giving it. I don't think that's necessary though, if someone wants a binding answer they need to go to their (or their companies) lawyer anyway and opinions will differ. But a non-binding advice by someone who has a good understanding of these issues would be very helpful IMO.

Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan

Comment on Re: The Perl Foundation Wants to Hear From You

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: The Perl Foundation Wants to Hear From You by demerphq (Chancellor) on Dec 07, 2005 at 16:42 UTC
IANAL 1. Depends on the license. You should speak with a lawyer if you have any doubts. 2. Copyright is a complex subject. Its quite possible that much of a program is exempted from copyright for various reasons. You should speak with a lawyer if you have any doubts. 3. Depends on the license. You should speak with a lawyer if you have any doubts. 4. You should inform the author that they have not specified a license model and that you would like clarification. You should speak with a lawyer if you have any doubts. 5. You should speak to a lawyer about the first point. The second point i believe is more clear: ST is a technique, so it is quite possible that a given instance of the technique is under a copyright, however its quite clear that the technique itself is not copywritable as techniques just arent copywritable. And the fact that the ST is well documented and in print suggests that it is not patented. But if you have doubts about this you should speak to a lawyer, patent law is not for the weak of heart. 6. If the code is released under the Artistic license you are fairly free to use the code as you choose. You should speak to a lawyer for specific interpretations of your rights. In short none of this stuff is within the remit of this site or of TPF. If you want a site that does deal with stuff like that wander over to http://groklaw.com. But even there you will find advice that more or less boils down to If in doubt, speak with a lawyer. --- $world=~s/war/peace/g	[reply]
Re^3: The Perl Foundation Wants to Hear From You by tirwhan (Abbot) on Dec 07, 2005 at 17:20 UTC
You should speak with a lawyer if you have any doubts. Thanks, I know the litany :-). And if I have occasion to need a concrete answer to a question which is really doubtful I will. But the always-correct answer "you should talk to a lawyer" does not help someone who cannot or does not want to talk to a lawyer and just wants to know "Can I take this module and use it at work." or "Can I copy this subroutine into my own program". That's an entry-barrier into using OS software which we can do without. No programmers I know like dealing with legal stuff and if they come up with such a question and don't easily find an answer they may decide to not bother and wander off to use C# instead. I believe that most of these questions can be answered in general with a fair amount of accuracy by a knowledgeable person, and having these answers available would be a good thing. Anyway, I'm happy with chromatics answer, so no need to butt heads over this. Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan	[reply]
Re^2: The Perl Foundation Wants to Hear From You by chromatic (Archbishop) on Dec 07, 2005 at 16:55 UTC
TPF is soliciting comments on a proposed second version of the Artistic License and a FAQ that gives answers and interpretations to many of these questions. Do consult your own laywer though.	[reply]
Re^3: The Perl Foundation Wants to Hear From You by tirwhan (Abbot) on Dec 07, 2005 at 17:14 UTC
Thank you, that is the best answer I could have hoped for and great news. Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan	[reply]