Does a GPL API infect its apps?
Andrew J Bromage
ajb at buzzword.cc.monash.edu.au
Thu Oct 21 01:19:50 UTC 1999
On Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 02:08:20PM -0400, Raymond Luk wrote:
> Web have a Web application framework which is open source
> (www.smartworker.org). It is currently using a BSD-style license but we want
> to change to GPL. It is essentially a set of mod_perl classes.
If you're using mod_perl, it might be worth considering releasing under
the same terms as Perl (i.e. either GPL or Artistic, at the licencee's
discretion). The reason I suggest this is that it's not clear what
constitutes "linking" under the GPL in the context of interpreted or
partially compiled languages (or even of client/server systems such as
CORBA, but that's another story).
The GPL was clearly written with C in mind, not Perl.
The Artistic License, on the other hand, makes it explicit:
6. The scripts and library files supplied as input to or
produced as output from the programs of this Package do not
automatically fall under the copyright of this Package, but
belong to whomever generated them, and may be sold
commercially, and may be aggregated with this Package.
7. C or perl subroutines supplied by you and linked into this
Package shall not be considered part of this Package.
More information about the License-discuss