-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On April 12, 2004 09:26, Juan Alberto Cirez wrote: > Just a dumb question: Is ActiveState(http://www.activestate.com) > Violating the GPL license under which perl is released by removing the > perl back-end compiler (perlcc) from their perl port, then developing a > SDK (PerlDev kit) with its own back-end compiler, charging a license fee > for the product and refusing to release the source code, or offer the > SDK free of charge...In short, taking something from the public > domain(open-source), modifying it, then close-sourcing it...?
as was mentioned, Perl isn't GPL'd. but even then, it depends. if Perl itself was GPL'd, what does perlcc link against? in my distribution of Perl, it's a statically compiled app (no lib linkage) ... this would imply that you don't need any bits of Perl to write a perlcc-alike, as you could reimplement the whole thing yourself as needed. seeing as things like algorithms, design, language specs, etc aren't covered under the copyright assignment of the product (they can be covered by things like patents, though.. ick) then even if they do have their own perlcc and even IF Perl was GPL'd it may not mean it's a violation. now, IF Perl was GPL'd and they used code from that GPL'd body of work directly in their product then YES it would be a violation. hth - -- Aaron J. Seigo GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 while (!horse()); cart(); -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAe3Ed1rcusafx20MRAr9MAJ0Q4UtOvBnkbCTZGjAzanI5C0hKPQCgkBys 2gacUuBbF9OGNwkZrukuLxw= =EsXq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
