in reply to Re: licensing confusion
in thread licensing confusion

In particular at the GPL FAQ I suggest the item for when the interpreter is GPLed. In there they address directly what should be a separate question, namely the case of libraries in an interpreted language. And their answer is that if you wish to use LWP, your program must be GPLed.

Note, however, that the advice given by the FSF is given by people interested in the most restrictive interpretation possible. OTOH that is advice determined by legal counsel, and were the GPL to go to court then that legal counsel's interpretation of their own license would have substantial weight in determining the interpretation of the license. IANAL, and I am not giving legal advice, but I personally would think twice before thinking that the FSF's interpretation would not therefore hold up in court.

I also note that the GPL has never been tested in court. This is both good and bad. It is bad because there are no rulings to clarify the possible legal readings. It is good because it means that every time the FSF has challenged a corporation on the GPL, the corporation had their legal eagles read the license, and the lawyers told the company to blink.

(For more on the enforcement techniques the FSF uses to get compliance, you can read Eben Moglen's description.)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re (tilly) 2: licensing confusion
by david54321 (Acolyte) on Oct 30, 2001 at 09:31 UTC
    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!
[reply]
      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]
      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]
Re: Re (tilly) 2: licensing confusion
by Warped (Initiate) on Oct 30, 2001 at 18:23 UTC
    On the other hand, if it runs in a Windows environment M$ might help with your defense seeing as how they want to kill the whole open source movement.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom