Perl Monk, Perl Meditation | |
PerlMonks |
(kudra: tmtowtd free software licensing) Re: OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPLby kudra (Vicar) |
on Jun 20, 2002 at 13:36 UTC ( [id://176007]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Also the perl core is GPled and is a target for this module. Actually, "Perl may be copied only under the terms of either the Artistic License or the GNU General Public License..." The Artistic License is not the same as GPL (and it's funny you consider GPL to be left-wing...I think it's about as restrictive as open-source licenses get). Many modules are available "under the same terms and conditions of Perl itself", which means the choice for either license exists. I, and I imagine others, prefer to use Perl under the Artistic license. Because the Artistic license is an acceptable way of using Perl, I hope a module only available under GPL would be rejected for the core. Also, don't forget programs distributed under other free licenses (such as the BSD license) You can't make these programs GPL licensed just by using them. Would these programs have to fall in the category of 'non-free software' just because they don't use the 'right' free license? If that's the case, consider just how little freedom a hard-line GPL only stance gives you if it forces you to reject free, open-source software available under other licenses. Signs of restrictions can already be seen in section two, which prevents one form of GPL programs from using other GPL programs. (GPL software can only be used by users and linked to by other GPL programs, it can link to LGPL programs, but cannot link to RGPL programs, otherwise the RGP L program might be considered a derived work and fall under the GPL.) Consider the Perl motto "There's more than one way to do it." It's as applicable to free software licensing as programming.
In Section
Meditations
|
|