>>>>> ""Chas" == "Chas Owens" <chas.ow...@gmail.com> writes:
"Chas> Neither license prevents people from selling the software in question, "Chas> but both require that source be available (or made available), so "Chas> anyone charging an arm and a leg for it will rapidly find free "Chas> versions being made available (see CentOS and RedHat for an example). No, the Artistic license is much more like a MIT/BSD-style license, which basically permits the recipient of your work nearly every right you also have. The recipient is free to incorporate your work into their commercial product, and never share the source code of the derived work. Some of us consider this a Good Thing. Basically, GPL retains many rights to the author, making it an assymetric relationship, effectively distrusting any second or third or fourth party by making the originator a special case. The Artistic license gives away nearly every right to the recipients, equally trusting that they'll "do the right thing" more often than not. Think of the GPL as "socialism by force" and the Artistic as "socialism by choice". -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <mer...@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org http://learn.perl.org/
