Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl Monk, Perl Meditation
 
PerlMonks  

(kudra: tmtowtd free software licensing) Re: OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL

by kudra (Vicar)
on Jun 20, 2002 at 13:36 UTC ( [id://176007]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL

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.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (kudra: tmtowtd free software licensing) Re: OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL
by mdupont (Scribe) on Jun 20, 2002 at 14:42 UTC
    First of all, The GPL does not cover the Dumping of code as data, it cannot the restrict the usage of the GCC via an XML interface. Therefore it is not that restrictive. The RGPL is just for that purpose.

    Secondly, I can use the PERL under the GPL. Even if it is licensed, under the Artistic license.

    BSD is a problem right now, because you cannot link BSD to GPL, and you cannot make BSD modules attached to the GCC.

    The motivation for creating this library is to create a haven for free software tools to interact with the meta data of the compilers. Unless we protect that, it will be very difficult to get support of the compiler vendors for such a patch. Believe me!

    I am well aware of issues, the RGPL provides the only solution to the issue protecting the AST dumps from the compilers.

    Regards,

    Mike

      BSD is a problem right now, because you cannot link BSD to GPL, and you cannot make BSD modules attached to the GCC

      Well, as I've understood, that's GPL's problem, not BSD's problem. The BSD license is more free (the only true free software is public domain software) than the GPL.

      I never write modules and release them under the GPL. I seldomly agree with Microsoft, but I do agree with their opinion that the GPL is a viral license. I prefer the use an MIT/X style license. I release code because I want to the code to be used, not because for political statementes, or because I want to enforce my ideas on the world.

      I'm only a humble coder. I've consumed more code that I've given. Who am I to put restrictions on the code I release?

      Abigail

        You wrote :

          Well, as I've understood, that's GPL's problem, not BSD's problem. The BSD license is more free (the only true free software is public domain software) than the GPL.

        Why is that GPLed problem, look at the Mono/Pnet issue? The Pnet guys can use the MONO libs (X11), but the Mono cannot use the Pnet libs(GPL).

        The BSD license is not producing any C compilers is it? partly because any major investment would not be protected.

        Even the Mono C# Compiler is GPL to protect it.

        If you can point out any MIT/X/BSD licensed C, C++, Java, and Perl parsers, full semantic analysis and code generation tools. Dont forget Make, Bison, Flex and BASH. They would all be targets for extracting meta-data from.

        Then we can use those tools then I can just forget about making interfaces to the gcc and uses these truly free tools.

        You wrote :


          Who am I to put restrictions on the code I release?


        Exactly.

        Who am I to put under BSD what is given to me under GPL?

        The GPL is succesful because it creates and End to End set of tools, not because it because anyone can take the results and run with them.

        Anyway abigail, I do have respect for you opinion, mine is just different. :)

        Mike

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://176007]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (4)
As of 2024-03-29 02:38 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found