Re^3: Am I Allowed to Make a New Compiler/Language using Perl?

http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=933609

in reply to Re^2: Am I Allowed to Make a New Compiler/Language using Perl?
in thread Am I Allowed to Make a New Compiler/Language using Perl?

Well, you don't find such clauses in open source licences

Perl 6 - second systems done right

Comment on Re^3: Am I Allowed to Make a New Compiler/Language using Perl?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Am I Allowed to Make a New Compiler/Language using Perl? by Corion (Patriarch) on Oct 25, 2011 at 13:09 UTC
I think the GPL v3 comes close, or at least forces restrictions on the (distribution of) the output generated by a GPL v3 program. But I have solved this problem for me personally a long time before the GPL v3, so I haven't investigated whether that is really the case for things like a compiler. It seems to be the case for things like web application servers, where accessing the application over the web is basically identical to distribution of the application server binary.	[reply]
Re^5: Am I Allowed to Make a New Compiler/Language using Perl? by moritz (Cardinal) on Oct 25, 2011 at 13:30 UTC
The GPL v3 text says The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. and I have no idea what that means. There's an interesting FAQ entry, which contains the sentence If the user uses your program to enter or convert his own data, the copyright on the output belongs to him, not you Which seems to imply that if you write a compiler and license it under the GPLv3, the output still belongs to the user. Comforting. Perl 6 - second systems done right	[reply]
Re^6: Am I Allowed to Make a New Compiler/Language using Perl? by Anonymous Monk on Oct 25, 2011 at 13:48 UTC
and I have no idea what that means. I think it means, increase the FAQ :) Consult the lawyers :)	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom