On 18/07/2014 09:44, Moritz Lenz wrote:
(But I do have to wonder, why is it OK to use perl, but it wouldn't be OK to
use a perl library under the same license? That does seem a tad odd to me).
This has been discussed at length on lucy-private when Lucy was still in the
incubator. Here's my interpretation of the results of this discussion:
Regarding the GPL, the Perl license terms make it clear that Perl modules and
scripts are not considered to be a derivative work of the Perl interpreter and
do not fall under the same licensing terms. The same goes for XS bindings:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-79
For a Perl library, it's not that clear. A project using that library might be
considered derivative work. This rules out the GPL option, at least if you
take a conservative approach.
This leaves the option of choosing the Artistic license. It is unclear whether
it would be OK to bundle such libraries with Lucy (LEGAL-86). But using them
as a system requirement shouldn't be a problem, IMO.
So I want to retract my statement that Perl-licensed libraries are "unusable"
for Lucy. Still, the Lucy developers went great lengths to remove all
dependencies on CPAN modules. When choosing a serialization library, a
permissive license would be a big plus.
Nick
