Commercial use of mod_perl / modules
I've been asked an interesting (though apologies if this is a heated or irelevant topic) question: what's the legality of using mod_perl (and indeed Apache), and the available modules, in a non-GPL commercial application for which there is a charge? I can't think of any modules off hand that are GPLd (most of the ones I've come across tend to say "this is freeware, you're free to use it as you wish so long as you preserve my copyright message", etc.). As far as I can see, therefore, it is fine to use Apache and most of the perl modules (if they're not GPLd), as supporting tools, in a commercial project without paying for, or infringing, any authors's rights. So long, I guess, as you make it clear that there is no charge for Apache or any of the associated perl modules that you use in that project, and produce a list of all the individual authors' copyright notices. Sorry -- don't want to turn this into a long thread about commercialism versus "freedom" -- just wondering if there is a clear stance on the issue. Cheers Kirk.
RE: Commercial use of mod_perl / modules
ask a lawyer. if you get taken to court "but some guy on some mailing list said it was ok" is not a great defence. all: can we please not turn this thread into a million and one personal interpretations of the situation. unless you are qualified to give a legal advice, you are just creating list fluff and wasting bandwidth. -pete -Original Message- From: Kirk Bowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 11:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Commercial use of mod_perl / modules I've been asked an interesting (though apologies if this is a heated or irelevant topic) question: what's the legality of using mod_perl (and indeed Apache), and the available modules, in a non-GPL commercial application for which there is a charge? I can't think of any modules off hand that are GPLd (most of the ones I've come across tend to say "this is freeware, you're free to use it as you wish so long as you preserve my copyright message", etc.). As far as I can see, therefore, it is fine to use Apache and most of the perl modules (if they're not GPLd), as supporting tools, in a commercial project without paying for, or infringing, any authors's rights. So long, I guess, as you make it clear that there is no charge for Apache or any of the associated perl modules that you use in that project, and produce a list of all the individual authors' copyright notices. Sorry -- don't want to turn this into a long thread about commercialism versus "freedom" -- just wondering if there is a clear stance on the issue. Cheers Kirk.
Re: Commercial use of mod_perl / modules]
On 29 Jun 2002 01:46:00 +0400, Ilya Martynov wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:38:25 -0500, Stephen Clouse > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > SC> On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 01:09:21PM +0100, Peter Haworth wrote: > >> The GPL doesn't restrict use, only distribution. > > SC> I believe you need to read it again. Its whole purpose of > SC> existence is to restrict use by non-free software. Link GPL code > SC> into your non-free app at your own risk. > > AFAIK it is OK as long as you do not distribute the result. Admittedly, it has been some time since I read it. However, I've just done so. Here are some quotes: > 0. Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running > the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered > only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program Running the program, and it's output are not restricted. Otherwise, everything compiled by gcc would be under GPL, which it isn't. > 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, >thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such >modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that >you also meet all of these conditions: > b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole > or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, > to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the > terms of this License. This is the only condition in section 2 which mentions distribution. It doesn't say you have to distribute; only what applies if you do. These are from the GPL FAQ: > A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of > that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must > be released under the GPL if it is released at all. But from my reading (which could be wrong, of course), it doesn't say that you have to release it. > What the GPL requires is that [someone with a copy of a GPL'ed program] > must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to. -- Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Who is General Failure and why is he reading my disk?"
