Abbreviating a license is very error prone. I would recommend you say less rather than more. What you do say makes me think you are only thinking of the GPL, not the Artistic license. You can modify and distribute RPerl without providing source code for your modifications, for instance, so long as you adhere to paragraphs 3c and 4c. You can even sell it, if aggregated as specified in paragraph 5.
--
A math joke: r = | |csc(θ)|+|sec(θ)| |-| |csc(θ)|-|sec(θ)| |
| [reply] |
ysth,
From the RPerl FAQ:
"This means ... you can't re-sell RPerl without the source code ..."
I re-read the Artistic license to make sure I understood your point. Is it truly inaccurate for me to say that "you can't re-sell RPerl without the source code"?
Yes I've read and re-read Artistic sections 3c, 4c, and 5. I'm honestly not sure.
Thanks!
Perling,
~ Will
| [reply] |
Ahhh, the Artistic license, yeah, you can distribute binaries without source if you change-names-docs-trademarks... and document where to get the original source
- http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0
- 3.c You may modify ... provided ... rename ... manual ... differences from original
- 4.c You may distribute ... provided ... non-standard names ... document where get original
- http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0
- Distribution of Compiled Forms of the Standard Version or Modified Versions without the Source
- (5) You may Distribute ... provided document where get original
- (6) You may Distribute ... provided give source to original owner / buyers on demand
Distribute means buy/sell/whatever
Naturally I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be lawyer and this isn't legal advice and my sit-upon is itchy :)
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
