Bits of perl redistributable under LGPL?

Karsten M. Self kmself at
Tue Nov 27 20:47:33 UTC 2001

on Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:36:48PM +0000, John Rowe (rowe at wrote:
> I would like to write myself a little library to release under LGPL 
> (the 'L' is important here!) and it needs a regexp package. I could use 
> Henry's but would prefer to use perl's. 
> So here's the question: if I'm able to snip out the regexp code from 
> perl and make a few modifications am I entitled to release it under 
> LGPL? (With full attribution of course.)
> My feeling is that under the terms of the Artistic License I can 
> because:
> a) I can easily satisfy two of the four possible conditions (LGPL must 
> count as freely available and there is no executable to rename).
> b) There is no requirement to release any changes under the Artistic 
> License, just 'Freely'.
> c) The Clarified version is listed as GPL compatible and there seems 
> nothing to stop it from being LPGL.
> It's been a while since I looked at any of the regexp stuff in perl so 
> I don't know if it's practical to extract it but I certainly don't want 
> to waste a lot of time on it only to find it clashes with the Artistic 
> License.

You're asking for specific legal advice, which tends to carry both a
burden of providing legal advice, and sways a bit from the charter of
this list.

That said, my general understanding is that the LGPL is compatible with
the Artistic License, though the latter is an ambiguous (and apparently
intentionally so) document.  I haven't looked at the Clarified AL


Karsten M. Self <kmself at>
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?             Home of the brave                   Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!
Geek for Hire           
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list