merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz) (11/30/90)
In article <109384@convex.convex.com>, tchrist@convex (Tom Christiansen) writes: | In article <1990Nov28.122908.25542@ping.uucp> gorpong@ping.uucp | (Gordon C. Galligher) writes some very good points about what | using unexec from GNU means to perl. | | Bear in mind that Larry does not himself distribute perl with | any GNU code in it. It's up to you to do the linking. Also bear in mind that *all* of Perl *is* covered under the GPL (and is therefore "GNU code") since it is distributed under the GPL (check "Copying" in the distribution if you don't believe me, or just type "perl -v"). And let's not debate the merits of the GPL in this group... it pollutes too many other groups already. (IMHO, an unexec-ed binary would need to be distributed with all of the Perl source as well as the Perl script, given my interpretation of the GPL.) Just another Perl hacker, -- /=Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ==========\ | on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III | | merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn | \=Cute Quote: "Intel: putting the 'backward' in 'backward compatible'..."====/
worley@compass.uucp (Dale Worley) (12/04/90)
X-Name: Randal Schwartz
Also bear in mind that *all* of Perl *is* covered under the GPL (and
is therefore "GNU code") since it is distributed under the GPL (check
"Copying" in the distribution if you don't believe me, or just type
"perl -v").
However, the Perl license's reference to the GPL is modified by the
following paragraph (see the file 'README' in the distribution):
My interpretation of the GNU General Public License is that no Perl
script falls under the terms of the License unless you explicitly put
said script under the terms of the License yourself. Furthermore, any
object code linked with uperl.o does not automatically fall under the
terms of the License, provided such object code only adds definitions
of subroutines and variables, and does not otherwise impair the
resulting interpreter from executing any standard Perl script. I
consider linking in C subroutines in this manner to be the moral
equivalent of defining subroutines in the Perl language itself. You
may sell such an object file as proprietary provided that you provide
or offer to provide the Perl source, as specified by the GNU General
Public License. (This is merely an alternate way of specifying input
to the program.) You may also sell a binary produced by the dumping of
a running Perl script that belongs to you, provided that you provide or
offer to provide the Perl source as specified by the License. (The
fact that a Perl interpreter and your code are in the same binary file
is, in this case, a form of mere aggregation.) This is my interpretation
of the License. If you still have concerns or difficulties understanding
my intent, feel free to contact me.
I'm no lawyer, but I think this statement is likely to be treated as
part of the license agreement if the matter ever comes to trial.
Dale Worley Compass, Inc. worley@compass.com
--
In the shopping malls, in the high school halls -- conform or be cast out!
In the basement bars, in the backs of cars -- be cool or be cast out!
-- Rush, "Subdivisions"merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Dec3.164612.11047@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU>, worley@compass (Dale Worley) writes: | I'm no lawyer, but I think this statement is likely to be treated as | part of the license agreement if the matter ever comes to trial. OK, OK, I *knew* I should have read the README file before posting that last article. (Seeing all those index entries for The Book has made me a bit dizzy, though. :-) I've been politely pummeled privately and publicly for my lack of awareness. Consider the original statement appropriate annotated to read as y'all have suggested... that according to Larry, unexec'ed binaries are mere aggregation, and would thus require only the sources to the Perl interpreter to be made available at cost, and not your program source. Crawling back to my rock to index a few more thousand lines of troff... -- /=Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ==========\ | on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III | | merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn | \=Cute Quote: "Intel: putting the 'backward' in 'backward compatible'..."====/