On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Johnathan Kupferer wrote: > If a project I'm working on requires GPL code, I'm delighted since I am > legally obligated to make my source code available. I don't have to > worry about a boss telling me not to. This gives me the freedom to both > accomplish the task at hand and to contribute to the community.
I assume you tell your boss that you are using GPL'd code though! > Its easy to think of modules as add ons to a program but its only in > source version that any such distinction can be made. I suppose if the > Perl compiler you use can compile the modules separately from the > propriatary code then there would be no violation of the GPL, but if > there is no such separation in the binary then I don't see why the GPL > shouldn't apply. If there is some distinction in the binary then you > could argue that you were simply using the modules and not modifying > them or building something off of them. (Much like it isn't a violation > of GPL to run propritary code on a Linux system). Maybe what we need is > a fancy compiler like this. "Simply using" the modules is the same as linking. If the module is GPL only, then so is your code which links to it. It doesn't matter that Perl is a scripting language. IANAL but this comes straight from the FSF. -dave /*================== www.urth.org We await the New Sun ==================*/
