Base Perl modules with BSD software

Alex schatziegill at
Fri Jul 13 03:56:57 UTC 2007

On 07/12/07 20:16, Allison Randal wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>> Alex wrote:
>>> I am writing a piece of software that I want to license as BSD. I am
>>> using Perl, which is licensed under both the GPL and its own Artistic
>>> License.
>>> what about the modules included with Perl? Could a statement as 
>>> simple as "use Carp"
>>> force my program to be licensed under the GPL?
>> I believe most of the modules included in Perl use Artistic/GPL.
>> Artistic is explicitly not a copyleft license, and says, "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."  That means if
>> you only use Perl/Artistic modules you shouldn't have to be under the 
>> GPL.
> Yes, under the terms of the Artistic License, simply using a module or 
> the Perl interpreter itself doesn't make your program subject to the 
> terms of the Artistic License. (And the dual license means you can 
> choose between the Artistic terms and GPL terms, not that you have to 
> obey all the terms of both licenses.)
> So, it's fine to create a BSD licensed piece of software written in 
> Perl and using Perl modules (check the license of the Perl modules, 
> but most of them are "the same terms as Perl" or pure Artistic).
> Allison
Thanks a lot for your help everyone. I wasn't quite sure how the dual 
licenses worked, but I guess in my case I just take the most liberal 
(i.e., BSD-like) clause and follow that.

-Alex Hanson

More information about the License-discuss mailing list