in reply to GPL/artistic licence issues
in thread Non-Disclosure Legal Fun w/ my ex-Employer

I'm not to sure about your question about proprietry code that relies on GPL stuff. When in doubt, I tend to think "What does Debian do?". They never package proprietry code, so that doesn't help. Red Hat and SUSE do, so that makes me think it's ok.

As an example, just because something compiles under gcc doesn't mean it inherits the gcc (GPL license).

Had you modified LWP in any way, however, you would have had to release your LWP changes as GPL.

I'm not familiar with the Artistic License (PERL), but at work we use a product which stealth installs perl on the hard drive without making a mention of it, and then uses it as a back end. This indicates that either it's ok to abuse the perl distribution license a bit or that the authors of this software are over the line.

You are definately allowed to write your own free version of the software that you wrote for your company, but if it looks too similar you leave youself open to charges of copying. The GNU people do this all the time (it's called Chinese Wall or Black Box coding - you try and reproduce the functionality with no knowledge of the inside workings. Gnutella, ICQ and AIM clients were done like this).

Update Chromatic gives a much better answer below.

____________________
Jeremy
I didn't believe in evil until I dated it.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: GPL/artistic licence issues
by Beatnik (Parson) on May 27, 2001 at 23:11 UTC
    According to the GNU GPL FAQ:

    The GPL does not require you to release the modified program. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

    So if you modify LWP, and you release it, it has to be under the GPL
    (Update:considering LWP being released under the GPL; I don't know how it works under Artistic License)

    Greetz
    Beatnik
    ... Quidquid perl dictum sit, altum viditur.
Re (tilly) 2: GPL/artistic licence issues
by tilly (Archbishop) on May 28, 2001 at 07:49 UTC
    Section 8 of my copy of the Artistic License says:
    8. Aggregation of this Package with a commercial distribution is always permitted provided that the use of this Package is embedded; that is, when no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces visible to the end user of the commercial distribution. Such use shall not be construed as a distribution of this Package.
    I believe that this explicitly allows the "stealth install".
Re: Re: GPL/artistic licence issues
by Anonymous Monk on May 27, 2001 at 21:23 UTC
    Thanx Jepri !

    By the way, I may contact you soon for any available contract
    (seen on your homenode ;-)