Why (7) and (8) in the Artistic-2.0 (was Re: RFC 346 (v1) Perl6's License Should be (GPL|Artistic-2.0))

> >   (7) You may aggregate this Package (either the Standard Version or
> >       Modified Version) with other packages and distribute the resulting
> >       aggregation provided that You do not charge a licensing fee for the
> >       Package.  Distribution Fees are permitted, and licensing fees for
> >       other packages in the aggregation are permitted.  Your permission to
> >       distribute Standard or Modified Versions of the Package is still
> >       subject to the other terms set forth in other sections of this
> >       license.
> >
> >   (8) In addition to the permissions given elsewhere by this license, You
> >       are also permitted to link Modified and Standard Versions of this
> >       Package with other works and distribute the result without
> >       restriction, provided You have produced binary program(s) that do not
> >       overtly expose the interfaces of the Package.  This includes
> >       permission to embed the Package in a larger work of your own without
> >       exposing a direct interface to the Package.  This also includes
> >       permission to build stand-alone binary or bytecode versions of your
> >       scripts that require the Package, but do not otherwise give the casual
> >       user direct access to the Package itself.

David Grove wrote:

> I don't really understand what this is trying to say (7-8).

Section (7) makes it clear that you can put a copy of Perl or FooPerl with a
bunch of other stuff on a CD and legally distribute it.  This would probably
be permitted under copyright law anyway, but I think this is one case where
it's worth stating for sure, so people don't ask "Can I do this?".  I was
thinking particularly of people who make CPAN CD's and mirrors along with
proprietary software.

Section (8) allows people to take their Perl program, and use a
perl2exe-style programs, and make a binary out of it, and be permitted to
distribute that binary without any restrictions.

Section (8) also gives blanket permission if people want to embed Perl in a
larger system to get a job done.  For example, if you build a VCR that uses
Perl and it's all burned into ROM, you can do that, make it all proprietary,
and not have any other obligations under the license.

I build Section (7) and Section (8) based on what I *thought* the original
Artistic license was trying to do.  


> However, when it comes to perl itself, they should be required to provide
> freely redistributable sources and binaries for perl itself under the same
> license, to prevent them from going off onto a proprietary tangent of the
> language itself. If nothing else, they should need to provide it as an
> optional available distribution (plural if source _and_ binary) apart from
> their aggregates, without charge. It can't be an option that they
> proprietarize the source and binary of perl itself just because they add a
> little doodad.

If that doodad is user-visible and is more than mere aggregation, then
Section (7) and (8) don't apply.  They would have to distribute under the
terms of (4) or (6).



> Let ActiveState make their PerlScript, PerlEX, and pseudocompiler if they
> want, and charge whatever they want for it. But if perl is to be free, it
> needs to be redistributable without any loopholes providing them the
> ability to proprietarize the language itself, or make a community
> dependent upon themselves for the core language.
 
Under (5b), they could make their proprietary software PerlEX and
PerlScript.

There is no way around that, I don't think, unless we use the GPL-only for
perl, and that's surely not something the community wants!

We could force them to call it FooEX and FooScript with a trademark on Perl;
but that would be up to Larry to decide to go for the trademark.

> This appears to provide such a loophole that needs to be closed.

I don't see the loophole you are describing, at least not in (7) and (8).  I
realize that (5b) is a so-called "loophole" that allows PerlEX and
PerlScript, but I don't think the Perl community wants to close that
"loophole"; to do so would be going the full copyleft route.

-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn  -  http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE51VcS53XjJNtBs4cRAtKFAJ422tMTJSF88QnvrwWTq3YPh26cMgCdEAvW
WfsczouqAvbWjcvW3LWH51I=
=2vqK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----