[Israel.pm] Are we open source advocates ?
oron at actcom.co.il
Sun Jan 4 08:32:09 PST 2004
On Sunday 04 January 2004 16:14, David Baird wrote:
> This is not off topic. People should understand why Perl is not part of
> GNU, and has a special license.
You seem to mix three related but different entities:
- The GPL
- The GNU Project and FSF
- Free software in general
If we look at various FOSS (Free/Open-Source Software) as examples:
- perl doesn't belong to FSF and is Artistic or GPL (your choice).
- glibc belong to FSF and is LGPL (not GPL).
- Linux kernel doesn't belong to FSF and is GPL.
- Apache doesn't belong to FSF and has its own (Free) license.
Some clarification may be provided by:
> If I want to include a Perl interpreter in my commercial application,
You give good example for the differences between GPL and Artistic licenses
(with slight problematic terminology: s/commercial/proprietary/g you may
make money with GPL code as long as you distribute the source).
> The only exception for a GNU program is when it is redistributed as a
> separate binary file. Therefore, many GPL libraries are built to be
> dynamically loaded.
Oops, there is NO SUCH EXCEPTION whatsoever. The GPL does not talk about
libraries and other specific terms, it talks about *derived work*.
The issue of derived work is separate from GPL or FOSS in general (it applies
to copyright law in general) and is a tough legal issue.
Thinking that dynamic linking a library instead of static linking will change
its status as derived/non-derived work is naive at best (better consult with
a good lawyer before trusting this "trick"). [IANAL]
Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492
oron at actcom.co.il http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
-- Isaac Asimov
More information about the Perl