Re: Licenses in a commercial application

2007-03-20 Thread Adam Kennedy

Gabor Szabo wrote:

On 3/18/07, David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

You might find this open book helpful:

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/osfreesoft/book/


thanks



 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.

 What does that mean that no overt attempt is made to make this
 Package's interfaces visible ? How can I make sure we are fulfilling
 this requirement?

Quoting from that book:

This Section 8 accordingly limits the generally free distribution of
the source and executable codes under Section 1 and 4 respectively
when that distribution is part of a commercial aggregate with the
Package. In those situations, the Package may be utilized as part of
the commercial program, but its interfaces (and, correspondingly, the
ability to write new scripts in Perl) must be blocked from the end
user. This section is presumably included to prevent commercial
distributions of programs written in Perl from competing with the
parallel open source distributions of Perl that are intended to
encourage innovation and contributions to Perl itself.


That would mean ccperl and all the other vendor supplied perls were
actually violating with this section.

If package a script with PAR including everything even perl itself
then after it is
installed it allows writing scripts on this perl.





If you create a compiled distribution based on perl and a bunch of CPAN
packages and optionally some propriatery packages, is this then in
violation of that section? I personally don't see what's the point 
behind hiding

this version of perl.


I believe that's where the overtly bit might come into it.

If the ordinary users of YOUR program won't be writing Perl applications 
using what you install, but will just be using the normal user 
interfaces, it's fine.


If you install your program, but say And since it installs Perl, you 
can also use it to write your own Perl programs! that would be overtly 
making the interfaces visible.


If all the user ever see's is buttons and widgets, it's just fine.

IANAL however.

Adam K


Re: Licenses in a commercial application

2007-03-20 Thread David Nicol

On 3/20/07, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Gabor Szabo wrote:
 On 3/18/07, David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you install your program, but say And since it installs Perl, you
can also use it to write your own Perl programs! that would be overtly
making the interfaces visible.

If all the user ever see's is buttons and widgets, it's just fine.

IANAL however.

Adam K


I am not a lawyer either, but I used to think I would become one -- and I
think that you could even provide a script operations in this system using
an application-specific dialect of the Perl language facility without violating
anything.


This section is presumably included to prevent commercial
distributions of programs written in Perl from competing with the
parallel open source distributions of Perl that are intended to
encourage innovation and contributions to Perl itself.


I think the Artistic License explicitly allows forking Perl.  The fact that
nobody has successfully pulled this off has to do with the reward to
effort ratio and the bad effects of no longer being compatible with
man release perl, not a legal motivation.  Given the choice of installed
perl to run a perl script with, I would much rather have the command
line switches and so on than have to sneak an eval statement into
a regular expression in an e-mail filtering system.  Unless I wanted to
work around access control permissions or something.  Which is
another reason not to allow evaluation of user-provided code, the
insecurity implications.


--
When the day comes that anyone can bend our country's laws and
lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic
government dies. And we're just optimistic enough to believe that once
the facts are on the table, American public opinion will walk in with
a big stick. -- Preston Tucker, June 15, 1948


Re: Licenses in a commercial application

2007-03-20 Thread David Nicol

specifically, paragraph 4.c:


[you may distribnuted modifed Perl provided you]
give non-standard executables non-standard names,
and clearly document the differences in manual pages
(or equivalent), together with instructions on where to
get the Standard Version.


So, something like Whizzomatic can be automated by
writing whizz-scripts, using Perl!  (To obtain Perl,
see http://perl.org) would allow commercial distribution
under 4.c.

Para 8 allows Perl to fit into the bigger picture much
like a compiler -- compile an executable and distribute the
executable, that's not a distribution of the compiler.  Compose
an aggregation of perl and a perl script and distribute the
aggregation, that's not a distributioon of Perl.


Re: Cannot Contact Perl List Manager listmast at lists.perl.org

2007-03-20 Thread Ken Williams


On Mar 17, 2007, at 1:43 AM, imacat wrote:


Dear all,

I cannot reach CPAN list master [EMAIL PROTECTED], due to  
the

down of x3.develooper.com.  Is this normal?  Or has the list master's
contact address changed?  How to inform them that their mail server is
down?


Might have been this:

  http://log.perl.org/2007/03/oops_several_se.html

 -Ken



Re: Cannot Contact Perl List Manager listmast at lists.perl.org

2007-03-20 Thread imacat
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:28:35 -0500
Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Mar 17, 2007, at 1:43 AM, imacat wrote:
  I cannot reach CPAN list master [EMAIL PROTECTED], due to  
  the
  down of x3.develooper.com.  Is this normal?  Or has the list master's
 Might have been this:
http://log.perl.org/2007/03/oops_several_se.html

I think not.  x3.develooper.com has been down for at least
4 days continuously, as I have received the bounce mail from my sendmail
yesterday.  It does not look like a temporarily issue.

I guess its a permanent problem, like contact address chenged, etc,
or maybe someone shut its SMTP service down because of forgetting that
x3.develooper.com is still someone else' MX host.

--
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key: http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.txt

Woman's Voice News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's: http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
TLUG List Manager: http://lists.linux.org.tw/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tlug


pgp8JspllUyCr.pgp
Description: PGP signature