License for commercial perl application

[Leland123]

Hi,

I'm a developer of a perl application. I would be the copyright holder of the application. The application uses several modules that can be found on cpan, like the perl DBI for PG and ODBC:SN. It also uses Mail::Sendmail, Apache:BI, CGI::Session, etc. It is my understanding that some of the modules are released under a General Public License, (eg GPL).

I would like to release my application under a commercial license that would allow me to control the source code and receive compensation from end users who download a licensed version of my application.

Is this possible? Is there a preferred license for commerical versions of perl applications. Perhaps someone has already address this, and can provide some insight regarding the issues.

Regards,

LelandJ

Leland F. Jackson, CPA
Software - Master (TM)

http://www.smvfp.com

Nothing Runs Like the Fox

 

[icrf]

My personaly understanding of all this open source stuff is that calling something externally that's GPL doesn't mean your internal code must be GPL as well. It's like a commercial audio editor using a lame.dll for encoding. You're still required to include copyright notices and how to get all the original versions of all the GPL stuff you use, but so long as you're not taking CGI::Session and hacking the module itself for proprietary inclusion, you should be okay.

Actually, I'm probably thinking more of Perl's Artistic License and its whole "original version" mentality. Still, if mysql is GPL and you write some C thing that interfaces with it, that doesn't mean the C thing must be GPL. So long as the GPL-ed code can be isolated from yours, I think you'd be okay, but what do I know?

There's probably some ethical/license kind of forum on TT that may be better suited to answer.

________________________________________
Andrew

I work for a gift card company!

 

[Leland123]

Thanks Andrew,

Your thoughts about licensing and the issues of using GPL modules required in another application is pretty close to my understanding as well.

Thanks,

LelandJ

Leland F. Jackson, CPA
Software - Master (TM)

http://www.smvfp.com

Nothing Runs Like the Fox

 

[waiterm]

Information Technology Ethics in the Workplace Forum can be found here =>

http://www.tek-tips.com/threadminder.cfm?pid=717

Rob Waite

http://www.hostpipe.co.uk?src=TT

 

[Leland123]

Thanks Rob,

I posed the question to the "Information Technology Ethics in the Workplace Forum" forum.

Regards,

LelandJ

Leland F. Jackson, CPA
Software - Master (TM)

http://www.smvfp.com

Nothing Runs Like the Fox

 

[greaver]

Hi Leland,

I'm in a similar situation you were in with respect to using PERL to develop a proprietary app. I am interested in the responses to your posting in the "Information Technology Ethics in the Workplace Forum" but I couldn't find it....

My understanding is that if you link in any GPL'ed (or Artistic licensed) modules (via 'use' or 'required') your application must be released as GPL.

Assuming you proceeded with the PERL implementation, how did you around your requirement for DBI? Did you locate a reliable proprietary alternative?

Sonny.

 

[ishnid]

Most modules are distributed `under the same terms as Perl itself', which gives you the option of using the Artistic Licence. Quote from that:

you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own. You may embed this Package's interpreter within an executable of yours (by linking); this shall be construed as a mere form of aggregation, provided that the complete Standard Version of the interpreter is so embedded.

That says to me that you can definitely distribute/use unmodified versions of the interpreter/module with any program you wish. It only gets a bit messier if you're actually changing the module. That's how I understand it anyway.

 

[Leland123]

Hi greaver,

My application is still in development, so I'm still wrestling with how I will finally release it. The application I'm writing users Apahce:BI, DBI, CGI, & CGI::Sessions among others.

It is my position that if the GPL application is kept separate from the proprietary application, then their should be no requirement that the proprietary application conform to the GPL license.

Since the modules my application uses are separate from my application, then there should be no problem with selling my application.

The modules my application uses are not distributed with my application, but can be downloaded separately from CPAN. Also, my application in no way extends the CPAN application which are called by my application without change.

#-------------------------------------

I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?
You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.

A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.

The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.

If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights

#-----------------------------------------

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem

http://www.suncoastlug.org/opensource.html

#---------------------------------------

Regards,

LelandJ


Leland F. Jackson, CPA
Software - Master (TM)

http://www.smvfp.com

Nothing Runs Like the Fox

 

[icrf]

Remember, as ishnid metioned, modules released "under the same terms as Perl itself" means that they're available under the Artistic License or the GPL. Most of the interpretations and such things you'll find on the internet relate to the GPL, and the AL is more lax than that. It's a good bit closer to the LGPL, but I haven't read either in awhile, and the number of years since I've practiced law is
[tt]Illegal division by zero at -e line 1.[/tt]

________________________________________
Andrew

I work for a gift card company!

 

[chazoid]

greaver, here's a link to the thread if you haven't found it already: thread717-971766

 

[greaver]

Thanks for all of the replies folks.

Andrew, seeing as you were once a dalek ... err, I mean lawyer :") could I beg your indulgence to view a recent version of the Artistic License and give us an informed verdict?

http://www.perl.com/pub/a/language/misc/Artistic.html

 

[icrf]

My apologies, twas poorly worded sarcasm. I'm a code monkey, plain and simple. :-/

________________________________________
Andrew

I work for a gift card company!

 

[ishnid]

Not so poorly worded IMO - just geeky humour. *I* thought it was funny.

 

[greaver]

Andrew,

Lol, I was thinking along the lines: Division of anything by zero = infinity, so I thought you just meant a *very* long time.

Sonny.

 

[icrf]

we aim to please, be it technical, amusement, or some half-breed

In the end, the letter of the license is what matters in court, and for that, if you're really concerned, you need to consult a lawyer. But you won't get to court until someone sues you, and that won't happen if you obey the spirit of the license. The GPL tends to be more simplistic "code should be free" whereas the AL/LGPL is more "use the code, find it useful, but if you change the code, donate your changes." The DBI is used everywhere, and they want it used everywhere. But, if you enhance the DBI itself, they want everyone to benefit, so share that piece of the love.

________________________________________
Andrew

I work for a gift card company!

 

[MikeLacey]

As Andrew says "if you're really concerned, you need to consult a lawyer"

Mike

You cannot really appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in the
original Klingon.

Want great answers to your Tek-Tips questions? Have a look at faq219-2884