Hi there,
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> So sprach Laurent Duperval am Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 01:51:45PM -0500:
> > Tcl. It's under the BSD license meaning you can do pretty much what you want
>
> Okay, so it is even more liberal.
>
> > with it. Perl is under the Artistic license.
>
> Perl is under both AFAIK.
>
> Lemme rephrase my question: Are there any programming languages included
> that are under a less liberal license than the GPL, and that are only under
> this license?
Without wishing to push this into the kind of sensitive issue that gets
GNU puppies all fired up, what kind of license do you imagine a
programming language (implementation) could be under that would be less
liberal than GPL? Obviously, commercial/royalty-based implementations
aside (I doubt they would make it onto a Mandrake distribution) ... GPL is
pretty viral and harsh, and if it isn't telling you to do things you don't
want to do, I doubt very much you will have any problem with a BSD,
artistic, or other kind of license.
Anyway - what's perhaps more curious is why the license attached to a
programming language should matter? AFAIK, no implementations of a
programming language have any bearing over what license you are allowed to
distribute your code or programs with. And if its on the Mandrake CD,
there's a good chance you are allowed to use it and so is anyone else that
you ask to load up the same tools. Perhaps the biggest risk in all this is
that you may wish to distribute a self-contained package including any
required libraries and this may involve re-distributing libraries from
language implementations? If that's what you're asking - good question, I
look forward to seeing the answers myself. :-)
Cheers,
Geoff
