I was under the (mistaken) impression that ActiveState's perl distribution was under a similar license to Perl, after attempting to read through the community license I am at a complete loss as to its implications, it would appear to grant unlimited distribution within "organizations" without defining them, and could be calling anything built with it a derivitive package, that cannot be distributed. I think that they are saying that its use internally (ala the GPL) is not restricted, but that selling somthing that includes it is, now I don't mean to play the Devil's advocate, but it would appear to me that any subscription model involves an orginzation (the subscribers) and would allow distribution among them, although this appears to be in violation of the "Spirit" it was written in. Can someone help me out here, I really don't think I understand what was intended with this license, or what it implies.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Angelos Karageorgiou wrote: > > It is fine, the issue is philosophical.That is, how you think of > > yourself. Are you part of the Open Source crowd or not. > > Open source doesn't mean free. ActiveState makes revenue "selling" Perl. > There are business models that focus on selling services, but the > simplest is still to sell the product directly. > > Cheers, > mark > > > > > > Octavian Rasnita wrote: > >> Is it legally to sell an application that uses Active Perl? > >> Or it is allowed only to give the app for free and earn money only > >> from secondary services? > > > -- > Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > _______________________________________________ > ActivePerl mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs > -- Some software money can't buy. For everything else there's Micros~1.
_______________________________________________ ActivePerl mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
