Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
According to horos:
> well, if glib was used, would that mean the perl source code would
> necessarily need to be GPLed? Where does 'derived works' end?
According to the Debian docs, glib is distributed under the LGPL, the
"{Lesser,Library} GPL". The LGPL is a lot less trouble than the GPL
for those who want to combine code bases into larger projects.
In my estimation, Perl 6 should be able to use LGPL'd code without
doing irreparable harm to its usability in GPL-hostile areas like,
say, components of large proprietary applications. [1]
On the other hand, Larry's philosophy seems to be much less GPL or
even LGPL than it is X/BSD. I paraphase: "Use this however you like.
If you don't immediately donate to the pool of free software, that's
OK with me. You'll do it when you're ready." [2]
On the gripping hand, part of the big deal with the Perl 6 project is
reengineering of both the code *and* the community. So if LGPL'd code
would spare us huge troubles and headaches, I'd be inclined to use it.
(But re-using bad code would be a huge mistake. So let's be cautious.)
[1] I suggest that detailed and/or theoretical discussions of
legalities belongs elsewhere -- say, gnu.misc.discuss. I think
it is OK to keep talking about licenses, as long as we're broadly
discussing what to use and why, and not just playing lawyer with
license terms.
[2] I have no problem with authors choosing the GPL. I do have a
problem with people pressuring authors to choose _only_ the GPL.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <chip@valinux.com>
"I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence,
but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K