On 3/20/07, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gabor Szabo wrote:
> On 3/18/07, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you install your program, but say "And since it installs Perl, you
can also use it to write your own Perl programs!" that would be overtly
making the interfaces visible.
If all the user ever see's is buttons and widgets, it's just fine.
IANAL however.
Adam K
I am not a lawyer either, but I used to think I would become one -- and I
think that you could even provide a "script operations in this system using
an application-specific dialect of the Perl language" facility without violating
anything.
This section is presumably included to prevent commercial
distributions of programs written in Perl from competing with the
parallel open source distributions of Perl that are intended to
encourage innovation and contributions to Perl itself.
I think the Artistic License explicitly allows forking Perl. The fact that
nobody has successfully pulled this off has to do with the reward to
effort ratio and the bad effects of no longer being compatible with
man release perl, not a legal motivation. Given the choice of installed
perl to run a perl script with, I would much rather have the command
line switches and so on than have to sneak an eval statement into
a regular expression in an e-mail filtering system. Unless I wanted to
work around access control permissions or something. Which is
another reason not to allow evaluation of user-provided code, the
insecurity implications.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country's laws and
lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic
government dies. And we're just optimistic enough to believe that once
the facts are on the table, American public opinion will walk in with
a big stick." -- Preston Tucker, June 15, 1948
