perl licence

Hi,

Is it legally to sell an application that uses Active Perl?
Or it is allowed only to give the app for free and earn money only from
secondary services?

Thanks.

Octavian

_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: perl licence

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040106020001030408090408
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It is fine, the issue is philosophical.That is, how you think of
yourself. Are you part of the Open Source crowd or not.



Octavian Rasnita wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it legally to sell an application that uses Active Perl?
> Or it is allowed only to give the app for free and earn money only from
> secondary services?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Octavian

--------------040106020001030408090408
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
name="angelos.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="angelos.vcf"

begin:vcard
fn:Angelos Karageorgiou
n:Karageorgiou;Angelos
org:Vivodi Telecommunications S.A.
email;internet:angelos@unix.gr
title:Technonology Manager
tel;work:+30 211 7503 893
tel;fax:+30 211 7503 701
tel;cell:+30 6949120773
note;quoted-printable: =
=
Linkedin Profile =
=
http://www.linkedin.com/in/unixgr =
=
=
=
Personal Web Site =
http://www.unix.gr
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.linkedin.com/in/unixgr
version:2.1
end:vcard


--------------040106020001030408090408
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
--------------040106020001030408090408--

Re: perl licence

--===============1381270420==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_44777_20069637.1216044449660"

------=_Part_44777_20069637.1216044449660
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

This sort of approach scares me, eating, and making money in order to do so
does not reduce your standing in the community, there are obviously those
people whom would rather have a "sales" transaction with a trusted source,
than download something freely available on the 'Net, selling them something
is not at philosophical odds with Free Software, its one of the Freedoms
that implicitly and carefully protected in most OSI licenses.

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Angelos Karageorgiou
wrote:

> It is fine, the issue is philosophical.That is, how you think of
> yourself. Are you part of the Open Source crowd or not.
>
>
>
>
> Octavian Rasnita wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is it legally to sell an application that uses Active Perl?
>> Or it is allowed only to give the app for free and earn money only from
>> secondary services?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Octavian
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ActivePerl mailing list
> ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
> To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
>



--
Some software money can't buy. For everything else there's Micros~1.

------=_Part_44777_20069637.1216044449660
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

This sort of approach scares me, eating, and making money in order to do so does not reduce your standing in the community, there are obviously those people whom would rather have a "sales" transaction with a trusted source, than download something freely available on the 'Net, selling them something is not at philosophical odds with Free Software, its one of the Freedoms that implicitly and carefully protected in most OSI licenses.

Re: perl licence

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070708070702040005000301
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Patric don't get upset, I never said anything about reducing one's
standing, it is just an issue of how one view's oneself. If he thinks he
should give away his code, its fine, if not, it is fine again. Both ways
are legal and valid. It is up to the individual.

Your points are of course valid.

patric conant wrote:
> This sort of approach scares me, eating, and making money in order to do
> so does not reduce your standing in the community, there are obviously
> those people whom would rather have a "sales" transaction with a trusted
> source, than download something freely available on the 'Net, selling
> them something is not at philosophical odds with Free Software, its one
> of the Freedoms that implicitly and carefully protected in most OSI
> licenses.
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Angelos Karageorgiou > > wrote:
>
> It is fine, the issue is philosophical.That is, how you think of
> yourself. Are you part of the Open Source crowd or not.
>


--------------070708070702040005000301
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
name="angelos.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="angelos.vcf"

begin:vcard
fn:Angelos Karageorgiou
n:Karageorgiou;Angelos
org:Vivodi Telecommunications S.A.
email;internet:angelos@unix.gr
title:Technonology Manager
tel;work:+30 211 7503 893
tel;fax:+30 211 7503 701
tel;cell:+30 6949120773
note;quoted-printable: =
=
Linkedin Profile =
=
http://www.linkedin.com/in/unixgr =
=
=
=
Personal Web Site =
http://www.unix.gr
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.linkedin.com/in/unixgr
version:2.1
end:vcard


--------------070708070702040005000301
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
--------------070708070702040005000301--

RE: perl licence

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
> Is it legally to sell an application that uses Active Perl? Or it is
> allowed only to give the app for free and earn money only from
> secondary services?

You need an OEM redistribution license if you want to redistribute ActivePerl
with your application. Contact sales@activestate.com for more information.

You don't need an OEM license if you just distribute your own app and let the
end-user download and install ActivePerl from www.activestate.com themselves.

You also don't need any additional license if you distribute your application
as a packaged executable using PAR/PerlApp/Perl2exe.

Cheers,
-Jan

_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: perl licence

I don't think it is philosophical, because I need to be sure that I respect
the licence, and maybe I don't understand it correctly, but as far as I
know, the GPL licence say that I can use a GPL licenced software in my
software only if I release my software as GPL.
I don't know if the artistic licence is more liberal though...

What I want to do is to create a program in perl language, to offer the
source code to the client, to allow him to modify and add features to the
program, but to not allow him to give the original or modified source to
anyone.

Can I do this with perl?

Thanks.




Octavian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Angelos Karageorgiou"
To: "Octavian Rasnita"
Cc:
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: perl licence


> It is fine, the issue is philosophical.That is, how you think of
> yourself. Are you part of the Open Source crowd or not.
>
>
>
> Octavian Rasnita wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is it legally to sell an application that uses Active Perl?
>> Or it is allowed only to give the app for free and earn money only from
>> secondary services?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Octavian
>

_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: perl licence

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
> What I want to do is to create a program in perl language, to offer
> the source code to the client, to allow him to modify and add features
> to the program, but to not allow him to give the original or modified
> source to anyone.
>
> Can I do this with perl?

Yes, the Perl license, or license of the Perl distribution you are using,
does not prevent you from using whatever license you choose for your own
code, especially if you are just distributing your own source code by
itself.

Questions about drafting your own commercial license should be directed
at a lawyer though to make sure it really means what you think it does.

Cheers,
-Jan

_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: perl licence

Angelos Karageorgiou wrote:
> It is fine, the issue is philosophical.That is, how you think of
> yourself. Are you part of the Open Source crowd or not.

Open source doesn't mean free. ActiveState makes revenue "selling" Perl.
There are business models that focus on selling services, but the
simplest is still to sell the product directly.

Cheers,
mark


>
> Octavian Rasnita wrote:
>> Is it legally to sell an application that uses Active Perl?
>> Or it is allowed only to give the app for free and earn money only
>> from secondary services?


--
Mark Mielke

_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: perl licence

--===============1738134886==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_47779_10838301.1216068214551"

------=_Part_47779_10838301.1216068214551
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I was under the (mistaken) impression that ActiveState's perl distribution
was under a similar license to Perl, after attempting to read through the
community license I am at a complete loss as to its implications, it would
appear to grant unlimited distribution within "organizations" without
defining them, and could be calling anything built with it a derivitive
package, that cannot be distributed. I think that they are saying that its
use internally (ala the GPL) is not restricted, but that selling somthing
that includes it is, now I don't mean to play the Devil's advocate, but it
would appear to me that any subscription model involves an orginzation (the
subscribers) and would allow distribution among them, although this appears
to be in violation of the "Spirit" it was written in. Can someone help me
out here, I really don't think I understand what was intended with this
license, or what it implies.

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Mark Mielke wrote:

> Angelos Karageorgiou wrote:
> > It is fine, the issue is philosophical.That is, how you think of
> > yourself. Are you part of the Open Source crowd or not.
>
> Open source doesn't mean free. ActiveState makes revenue "selling" Perl.
> There are business models that focus on selling services, but the
> simplest is still to sell the product directly.
>
> Cheers,
> mark
>
>
> >
> > Octavian Rasnita wrote:
> >> Is it legally to sell an application that uses Active Perl?
> >> Or it is allowed only to give the app for free and earn money only
> >> from secondary services?
>
>
> --
> Mark Mielke
>
> _______________________________________________
> ActivePerl mailing list
> ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
> To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
>



--
Some software money can't buy. For everything else there's Micros~1.

------=_Part_47779_10838301.1216068214551
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I was under the (mistaken) impression that ActiveState's perl distribution was under a similar license to Perl, after attempting to read through the community license I am at a complete loss as to its implications, it would appear to grant unlimited distribution within "organizations" without defining them, and could be calling anything built with it a derivitive package, that cannot be distributed. I think that they are saying that its use internally (ala the GPL) is not restricted, but that selling somthing that includes it is, now I don't mean to play the Devil's advocate, but it would appear to me that any subscription model involves an orginzation (the subscribers) and would allow distribution among them, although this appears to be in violation of the "Spir
it" it was written in. Can someone help me out here, I really don't think I understand what was intended with this license, or what it implies.

RE: perl licence

patric conant wrote:
> I was under the (mistaken) impression that ActiveState's perl
> distribution was under a similar license to Perl, after attempting to
> read through the community license I am at a complete loss as to its
> implications, it would appear to grant unlimited distribution within
> "organizations" without defining them, and could be calling anything
> built with it a derivitive package, that cannot be distributed.

> I think that they are saying that its use internally (ala the GPL) is
> not restricted, but that selling somthing that includes it is, now I
> don't mean to play the Devil's advocate, but it would appear to me
> that any subscription model involves an orginzation (the subscribers)
> and would allow distribution among them, although this appears to be
> in violation of the "Spirit" it was written in. Can someone help me
> out here, I really don't think I understand what was intended with
> this license, or what it implies.

Disclaimer: None of the text below is legal advice, just my
personal opinion!

It is my understanding that the license intends to say the following:

* You can freely download ActivePerl and use it on any machines you use.

* You can give it freely to your family, co-workers etc.

* You can put it up on a server internal to your "organization" so
that other people inside the same organization can download it from
there as well.

* Point people to www.ActiveState.com to download ActivePerl.

Things you can *not* do under the "community license" include:

* Making ActivePerl available for download from a publicly available
website or server.

* Including ActivePerl on a CD/DVD included with a book or magazine.

* Including ActivePerl in a software product that you distribute to
anybody outside your organization.

* Selling a computer that has ActivePerl pre-installed

For each of these activities you will need a separate OEM
redistribution license.

The spirit of the community license is that ActivePerl is freely
available to all its users, but to redistribute the complete package you
will need an additional license (and pay a fee). An exception is made
for redistribution inside your own organization because it is sometimes
not possible for each individual to download and install software from
the internet.

As I wrote earlier, you can always let your external users download and
install ActivePerl for free from the ActiveState website. That way there
is at least a chance that some of your users may notice other products
and services from ActiveState and decide to buy them.

Cheers,
-Jan


_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: perl licence

Hi Octavian,

Octavian Rasnita wrote on Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 08:25:51PM +0300:
> I don't think it is philosophical, because I need to be sure that
> I respect the licence,

Yes, you must assure that indeed!

> and maybe I don't understand it correctly, but as far as I know,
> the GPL licence say that I can use a GPL licenced software in my
> software only if I release my software as GPL.

No, that's not true; for example, you are also allowed to use GPL
licensed software in your own software if you do NOT distribute
your own software at all. You are by no means required to release
your own GPL-based work to anybody. You need to be very careful in
rushing to conclusions from what you think the spirit of some license.
Typically, courts will pick at nits, too, it's not just me.

The GPL is quite complicated (which is one of the various reasons
some people like it and others don't, but that's not relevant here).
Commercial licenses are usually very complicated, too. Do not rely
on what random people (like me) on the Internet tell you; Jan Dubois
is not random in the present context, but even he stated that you
should not rely on his words, either.

> I don't know if the artistic licence is more liberal though...

Than, please, READ IT, and if you rely on your reading for
commercial purposes, discuss it with a lawyer before acting on it.

> What I want to do is to create a program in perl language, to offer
> the source code to the client, to allow him to modify and add features
> to the program, but to not allow him to give the original or modified
> source to anyone.

If you want to distribute Perl source code without fee, i suspect
(and hope) that maybe, at least to some degree, you care about free
and open software. In that case, for making your work as useful as
possible for others (including your clients), consider the following:

The following is not legal, but political advice.

1. Resist the temptation to craft your own license.
There are dozens of well-known and widely used
open-source licenses around. Probably, one of them
will fit your needs. Prefer well-known and widely
used licenses to rare and obscure ones. This will
make life easier both for you and for your clients.
Probably, they already know that license, they know
how to handle it, and are not forced to have their
lawyers evaluate yet another license.
Besides, when they use parts of various software to create
something new and redistribute it, the more licenses get
involved, the more hassle to deal with.

2. Consider using the license of the software you are
building upon (or a license granting even more rights).
So, if you write Perl code, carefully check whether you
can use the Artistic license (ISC would also be fine
because it is even slightly more liberal, but shun the GPL
when contributing to Perl). Following this advice, people
face no additional obstacles using your code, and in case
it is really good, maybe it might even get integrated in
the base distribution at some time in the future.
On the other hand, when you add restrictions to the base
license and your code is really good, you can be reasonably
sure that someone will sooner or later reimplement the
concept from scratch and release it under the base license.
At that point, people will trash your work.

3. Keep your license as short, concise and easy to understand
even for non-lawyers as possible while still making sure
it is legally enforcible. This applies both when choosing
from existing licenses and when drafting new ones (hopefully
not). Most users will not be lawyers. Nearly all people
changing the code will not be lawyers. If they can
understand the license, that's really an asset.

4. If you end up wanting to require something seemingly required
by nobody else, seriously reconsider whether it does indeed
make sense. The number of ways to render software basically
useless by requiring absurd things in the license is unlimited.
Most of these traps look innocuous on first sight.
There are reasons why some requirements are typically left out
of licenses; do not think that your favourite idea is not in any
wide-spread license just because nobody thought of it yet.
People do think of all kinds of weird stuff. Probably, there
is some license out there containing that condition, but the
license is not wide-spread for that very reason.

Deciding license issues is delicate. Do take the time (and money,
if required) to make sure that what you are doing really makes
sense for you, for your clients and for the Perl community at large.
We don't need yet another ill-conceived, vaguely worded license
containing dubious, hard-to-comply-with, mousetrap restrictions.

Yours,
Ingo
_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: perl licence

Well, I don't think it is too complicated to create my own licence, because there are very few things to specify in it, but what I wanted to be sure is to be allowed to create commercial software with perl legally.

But it is ok if the artistic licence allows that.

GPL doesn't permit it because it doesn't allow distributing the software commercially to the clients without giving them permissions to distribute it to others.
If we are talking about licences it means that the program should be distributed, because otherwise why should we care what we can do with it. I guess all the licences allow the owner of the program to use it.

Octavian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ingo Schwarze"
To: "Octavian Rasnita"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: perl licence


> Hi Octavian,
>
> Octavian Rasnita wrote on Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 08:25:51PM +0300:
>> I don't think it is philosophical, because I need to be sure that
>> I respect the licence,
>
> Yes, you must assure that indeed!
>
>> and maybe I don't understand it correctly, but as far as I know,
>> the GPL licence say that I can use a GPL licenced software in my
>> software only if I release my software as GPL.
>
> No, that's not true; for example, you are also allowed to use GPL
> licensed software in your own software if you do NOT distribute
> your own software at all. You are by no means required to release
> your own GPL-based work to anybody. You need to be very careful in
> rushing to conclusions from what you think the spirit of some license.
> Typically, courts will pick at nits, too, it's not just me.
>
> The GPL is quite complicated (which is one of the various reasons
> some people like it and others don't, but that's not relevant here).
> Commercial licenses are usually very complicated, too. Do not rely
> on what random people (like me) on the Internet tell you; Jan Dubois
> is not random in the present context, but even he stated that you
> should not rely on his words, either.
>
>> I don't know if the artistic licence is more liberal though...
>
> Than, please, READ IT, and if you rely on your reading for
> commercial purposes, discuss it with a lawyer before acting on it.
>
>> What I want to do is to create a program in perl language, to offer
>> the source code to the client, to allow him to modify and add features
>> to the program, but to not allow him to give the original or modified
>> source to anyone.
>
> If you want to distribute Perl source code without fee, i suspect
> (and hope) that maybe, at least to some degree, you care about free
> and open software. In that case, for making your work as useful as
> possible for others (including your clients), consider the following:
>
> The following is not legal, but political advice.
>
> 1. Resist the temptation to craft your own license.
> There are dozens of well-known and widely used
> open-source licenses around. Probably, one of them
> will fit your needs. Prefer well-known and widely
> used licenses to rare and obscure ones. This will
> make life easier both for you and for your clients.
> Probably, they already know that license, they know
> how to handle it, and are not forced to have their
> lawyers evaluate yet another license.
> Besides, when they use parts of various software to create
> something new and redistribute it, the more licenses get
> involved, the more hassle to deal with.
>
> 2. Consider using the license of the software you are
> building upon (or a license granting even more rights).
> So, if you write Perl code, carefully check whether you
> can use the Artistic license (ISC would also be fine
> because it is even slightly more liberal, but shun the GPL
> when contributing to Perl). Following this advice, people
> face no additional obstacles using your code, and in case
> it is really good, maybe it might even get integrated in
> the base distribution at some time in the future.
> On the other hand, when you add restrictions to the base
> license and your code is really good, you can be reasonably
> sure that someone will sooner or later reimplement the
> concept from scratch and release it under the base license.
> At that point, people will trash your work.
>
> 3. Keep your license as short, concise and easy to understand
> even for non-lawyers as possible while still making sure
> it is legally enforcible. This applies both when choosing
> from existing licenses and when drafting new ones (hopefully
> not). Most users will not be lawyers. Nearly all people
> changing the code will not be lawyers. If they can
> understand the license, that's really an asset.
>
> 4. If you end up wanting to require something seemingly required
> by nobody else, seriously reconsider whether it does indeed
> make sense. The number of ways to render software basically
> useless by requiring absurd things in the license is unlimited.
> Most of these traps look innocuous on first sight.
> There are reasons why some requirements are typically left out
> of licenses; do not think that your favourite idea is not in any
> wide-spread license just because nobody thought of it yet.
> People do think of all kinds of weird stuff. Probably, there
> is some license out there containing that condition, but the
> license is not wide-spread for that very reason.
>
> Deciding license issues is delicate. Do take the time (and money,
> if required) to make sure that what you are doing really makes
> sense for you, for your clients and for the Perl community at large.
> We don't need yet another ill-conceived, vaguely worded license
> containing dubious, hard-to-comply-with, mousetrap restrictions.
>
> Yours,
> Ingo
_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: perl licence

On Jul 15, 2008, at 12:59, Octavian Rasnita wrote:

> Well, I don't think it is too complicated to create my own licence,
> because there are very few things to specify in it, but what I
> wanted to be sure is to be allowed to create commercial software
> with perl legally.
>
> But it is ok if the artistic licence allows that.
>
> GPL doesn't permit it because it doesn't allow distributing the
> software commercially to the clients without giving them
> permissions to distribute it to others.
> If we are talking about licences it means that the program should
> be distributed, because otherwise why should we care what we can do
> with it. I guess all the licences allow the owner of the program to
> use it.

To me it sounds like you are confusing the license to create and
distribute programs in Perl (the language) versus distributing perl
(the interpreter) and modifications of it.

There are no restrictions on the programs you create using Perl the
language. You own the programs you create and you are free to
license them any way you want and to sell them commercially.

There are restrictions on distributing perl (the interpreter) and
modifications of it. This is where the Artistic license, GPL and the
ActivePerl Community license comes into play. Restrictions also
apply to the distribution of modules from CPAN. Not all CPAN modules
use the same license as perl.

--Gisle

_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: perl licence

I was getting concerned about all the replies that Octavian had received to
what I also thought was a question from him just about distributing programs
in Perl that he had created. I'm glad that what you say confirms my
understanding of that situation.

Eric R

-----Original Message-----
From: activeperl-bounces@listserv.ActiveState.com [mailto:activeperl-
bounces@listserv.ActiveState.com] On Behalf Of Gisle Aas
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:50 PM
To: Octavian Rasnita
Cc: activeperl@listserv.ActiveState.com
Subject: Re: perl licence

On Jul 15, 2008, at 12:59, Octavian Rasnita wrote:

> Well, I don't think it is too complicated to create my own licence,
> because there are very few things to specify in it, but what I
> wanted to be sure is to be allowed to create commercial software
> with perl legally.
>
> But it is ok if the artistic licence allows that.
>
> GPL doesn't permit it because it doesn't allow distributing the
> software commercially to the clients without giving them
> permissions to distribute it to others.
> If we are talking about licences it means that the program should
> be distributed, because otherwise why should we care what we can do
> with it. I guess all the licences allow the owner of the program to
> use it.

To me it sounds like you are confusing the license to create and
distribute programs in Perl (the language) versus distributing perl
(the interpreter) and modifications of it.

There are no restrictions on the programs you create using Perl the
language. You own the programs you create and you are free to
license them any way you want and to sell them commercially.

There are restrictions on distributing perl (the interpreter) and
modifications of it. This is where the Artistic license, GPL and the
ActivePerl Community license comes into play. Restrictions also
apply to the distribution of modules from CPAN. Not all CPAN modules
use the same license as perl.

--Gisle

_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs


_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: perl licence

Ok, thank you. Now I understand better.

So a GPL program can be used in another commercial program which is sold for money without offering it's source code, but the GPL part should be licenced as GPL so it could be distributed freely.

Did I understand correctly?


Octavian

----- Original Message -----
From: "William T. Holmes"
To: "Octavian Rasnita" ; "Ingo Schwarze"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:28 PM
Subject: RE: perl licence


Hello,

You can most certainly charge for your product. What you can't charge for is Perl itself. Whether or not you can redistribute someone else's build is another question. This is no different from Java. You can write a Java program and sell it but you can't resell Java. You may have to get permission to distribute Java with your program but you can certainly sell your own program.

I have purchased several packages based on Perl and in each case they did not include Perl itself. They both specified Active State Perl as the preferred Perl distribution to use for the Windows environment.

Even Linux can be redistributed under the GPL. However the you can charge for you code and you don't even have to make your source code available even under the GPL. Practically every single DSL/Cable Router is based on Linux. Every manufacture is required to provide access to the source code for the portions of Linux they use but none of them have to provide their own code.

Bill


-----Original Message-----
From: activeperl-bounces@listserv.ActiveState.com [mailto:activeperl-bounces@listserv.ActiveState.com] On Behalf Of Octavian Rasnita
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:59 AM
To: Ingo Schwarze
Cc: activeperl@listserv.ActiveState.com
Subject: Re: perl licence

Well, I don't think it is too complicated to create my own licence, because there are very few things to specify in it, but what I wanted to be sure is to be allowed to create commercial software with perl legally.

But it is ok if the artistic licence allows that.

GPL doesn't permit it because it doesn't allow distributing the software commercially to the clients without giving them permissions to distribute it to others.
If we are talking about licences it means that the program should be distributed, because otherwise why should we care what we can do with it. I guess all the licences allow the owner of the program to use it.

Octavian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ingo Schwarze"
To: "Octavian Rasnita"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: perl licence


> Hi Octavian,
>
> Octavian Rasnita wrote on Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 08:25:51PM +0300:
>> I don't think it is philosophical, because I need to be sure that
>> I respect the licence,
>
> Yes, you must assure that indeed!
>
>> and maybe I don't understand it correctly, but as far as I know,
>> the GPL licence say that I can use a GPL licenced software in my
>> software only if I release my software as GPL.
>
> No, that's not true; for example, you are also allowed to use GPL
> licensed software in your own software if you do NOT distribute
> your own software at all. You are by no means required to release
> your own GPL-based work to anybody. You need to be very careful in
> rushing to conclusions from what you think the spirit of some license.
> Typically, courts will pick at nits, too, it's not just me.
>
> The GPL is quite complicated (which is one of the various reasons
> some people like it and others don't, but that's not relevant here).
> Commercial licenses are usually very complicated, too. Do not rely
> on what random people (like me) on the Internet tell you; Jan Dubois
> is not random in the present context, but even he stated that you
> should not rely on his words, either.
>
>> I don't know if the artistic licence is more liberal though...
>
> Than, please, READ IT, and if you rely on your reading for
> commercial purposes, discuss it with a lawyer before acting on it.
>
>> What I want to do is to create a program in perl language, to offer
>> the source code to the client, to allow him to modify and add features
>> to the program, but to not allow him to give the original or modified
>> source to anyone.
>
> If you want to distribute Perl source code without fee, i suspect
> (and hope) that maybe, at least to some degree, you care about free
> and open software. In that case, for making your work as useful as
> possible for others (including your clients), consider the following:
>
> The following is not legal, but political advice.
>
> 1. Resist the temptation to craft your own license.
> There are dozens of well-known and widely used
> open-source licenses around. Probably, one of them
> will fit your needs. Prefer well-known and widely
> used licenses to rare and obscure ones. This will
> make life easier both for you and for your clients.
> Probably, they already know that license, they know
> how to handle it, and are not forced to have their
> lawyers evaluate yet another license.
> Besides, when they use parts of various software to create
> something new and redistribute it, the more licenses get
> involved, the more hassle to deal with.
>
> 2. Consider using the license of the software you are
> building upon (or a license granting even more rights).
> So, if you write Perl code, carefully check whether you
> can use the Artistic license (ISC would also be fine
> because it is even slightly more liberal, but shun the GPL
> when contributing to Perl). Following this advice, people
> face no additional obstacles using your code, and in case
> it is really good, maybe it might even get integrated in
> the base distribution at some time in the future.
> On the other hand, when you add restrictions to the base
> license and your code is really good, you can be reasonably
> sure that someone will sooner or later reimplement the
> concept from scratch and release it under the base license.
> At that point, people will trash your work.
>
> 3. Keep your license as short, concise and easy to understand
> even for non-lawyers as possible while still making sure
> it is legally enforcible. This applies both when choosing
> from existing licenses and when drafting new ones (hopefully
> not). Most users will not be lawyers. Nearly all people
> changing the code will not be lawyers. If they can
> understand the license, that's really an asset.
>
> 4. If you end up wanting to require something seemingly required
> by nobody else, seriously reconsider whether it does indeed
> make sense. The number of ways to render software basically
> useless by requiring absurd things in the license is unlimited.
> Most of these traps look innocuous on first sight.
> There are reasons why some requirements are typically left out
> of licenses; do not think that your favourite idea is not in any
> wide-spread license just because nobody thought of it yet.
> People do think of all kinds of weird stuff. Probably, there
> is some license out there containing that condition, but the
> license is not wide-spread for that very reason.
>
> Deciding license issues is delicate. Do take the time (and money,
> if required) to make sure that what you are doing really makes
> sense for you, for your clients and for the Perl community at large.
> We don't need yet another ill-conceived, vaguely worded license
> containing dubious, hard-to-comply-with, mousetrap restrictions.
>
> Yours,
> Ingo
_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: perl licence

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030009040103090709050106
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hold on a second,

A brand new program that you have created using any tools, including
GPL tools, can be either GPL or not depending on how you license it.

If you use parts of another GPLed program within your code, then you
HAVE to GPL all of your program/code.




Octavian Rasnita wrote:
> Ok, thank you. Now I understand better.
>
> So a GPL program can be used in another commercial program which is sold for money without offering it's source code, but the GPL part should be licenced as GPL so it could be distributed freely.
>
> Did I understand correctly?

--------------030009040103090709050106
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
name="angelos.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="angelos.vcf"

begin:vcard
fn:Angelos Karageorgiou
n:Karageorgiou;Angelos
org:Vivodi Telecommunications S.A.
email;internet:angelos@unix.gr
title:Technonology Manager
tel;work:+30 211 7503 893
tel;fax:+30 211 7503 701
tel;cell:+30 6949120773
note;quoted-printable: =
=
Linkedin Profile =
=
http://www.linkedin.com/in/unixgr =
=
=
=
Personal Web Site =
http://www.unix.gr
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.linkedin.com/in/unixgr
version:2.1
end:vcard


--------------030009040103090709050106
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
--------------030009040103090709050106--

Re: perl licence

Well, as the artistic licence is more liberal than GPL, I don't think the perl programmers have problems distributing their programs if the artistic licence allow distributing commercial source code made in perl.

I don't want to distribute perl, but the programs made by me.

But I have also heard that Java uses the GPL licence and it can be also used in commercial programs.
(Although I don't think that GPL with exceptions used by Java is really GPL.)

Octavian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Angelos Karageorgiou"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: perl licence


> Hold on a second,
>
> A brand new program that you have created using any tools, including
> GPL tools, can be either GPL or not depending on how you license it.
>
> If you use parts of another GPLed program within your code, then you
> HAVE to GPL all of your program/code.
>
>
>
>
> Octavian Rasnita wrote:
>> Ok, thank you. Now I understand better.
>>
>> So a GPL program can be used in another commercial program which is sold for money without offering it's source code, but the GPL part should be licenced as GPL so it could be distributed freely.
>>
>> Did I understand correctly?
>


------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------


> _______________________________________________
> ActivePerl mailing list
> ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
> To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
_______________________________________________
ActivePerl mailing list
ActivePerl@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs