> > (7) You may aggregate this Package (either the Standard Version or
> > Modified Version) with other packages and distribute the resulting
> > aggregation provided that You do not charge a licensing fee for the
> > Package. Distribution Fees are permitted, and licensing fees for
> > other packages in the aggregation are permitted. Your permission to
> > distribute Standard or Modified Versions of the Package is still
> > subject to the other terms set forth in other sections of this
> > license.
> >
> > (8) In addition to the permissions given elsewhere by this license, You
> > are also permitted to link Modified and Standard Versions of this
> > Package with other works and distribute the result without
> > restriction, provided You have produced binary program(s) that do not
> > overtly expose the interfaces of the Package. This includes
> > permission to embed the Package in a larger work of your own without
> > exposing a direct interface to the Package. This also includes
> > permission to build stand-alone binary or bytecode versions of your
> > scripts that require the Package, but do not otherwise give the casual
> > user direct access to the Package itself.
David Grove wrote:
> I don't really understand what this is trying to say (7-8).
Section (7) makes it clear that you can put a copy of Perl or FooPerl with a
bunch of other stuff on a CD and legally distribute it. This would probably
be permitted under copyright law anyway, but I think this is one case where
it's worth stating for sure, so people don't ask "Can I do this?". I was
thinking particularly of people who make CPAN CD's and mirrors along with
proprietary software.
Section (8) allows people to take their Perl program, and use a
perl2exe-style programs, and make a binary out of it, and be permitted to
distribute that binary without any restrictions.
Section (8) also gives blanket permission if people want to embed Perl in a
larger system to get a job done. For example, if you build a VCR that uses
Perl and it's all burned into ROM, you can do that, make it all proprietary,
and not have any other obligations under the license.
I build Section (7) and Section (8) based on what I *thought* the original
Artistic license was trying to do.
> However, when it comes to perl itself, they should be required to provide
> freely redistributable sources and binaries for perl itself under the same
> license, to prevent them from going off onto a proprietary tangent of the
> language itself. If nothing else, they should need to provide it as an
> optional available distribution (plural if source _and_ binary) apart from
> their aggregates, without charge. It can't be an option that they
> proprietarize the source and binary of perl itself just because they add a
> little doodad.
If that doodad is user-visible and is more than mere aggregation, then
Section (7) and (8) don't apply. They would have to distribute under the
terms of (4) or (6).
> Let ActiveState make their PerlScript, PerlEX, and pseudocompiler if they
> want, and charge whatever they want for it. But if perl is to be free, it
> needs to be redistributable without any loopholes providing them the
> ability to proprietarize the language itself, or make a community
> dependent upon themselves for the core language.
Under (5b), they could make their proprietary software PerlEX and
PerlScript.
There is no way around that, I don't think, unless we use the GPL-only for
perl, and that's surely not something the community wants!
We could force them to call it FooEX and FooScript with a trademark on Perl;
but that would be up to Larry to decide to go for the trademark.
> This appears to provide such a loophole that needs to be closed.
I don't see the loophole you are describing, at least not in (7) and (8). I
realize that (5b) is a so-called "loophole" that allows PerlEX and
PerlScript, but I don't think the Perl community wants to close that
"loophole"; to do so would be going the full copyleft route.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
