Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Why I chose PerlAPP rather than PAR.

by tilly (Archbishop)
on Oct 29, 2004 at 19:47 UTC ( #403887=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Why I chose PerlAPP rather than PAR.

I believe that your lawyer misread this. Please read these comments, send it to your lawyer, and have your lawyer get back to you on this question again.

The license that covers PAR is the Artistic License, and the way that it is used in this case fits the 8'th article of the Artistic License. Therefore it does not restrict your commercial use. Period.

However, as the final sentence notes, this guarantee does not necessarily apply to third party modules. If all third party modules are also available under the Artistic License (things that say that they are licensed on the same terms as Perl are), then you're automatically clear. Otherwise you might not be. Or you might be. It is wrong to assume either way. And that is what your IP lawyer's response does.

Whether third party modules actually cause you a problem depends on what their licenses say. And that will vary. For instance with a BSD licensed module you will be fine. If it is only available under the GPL, then you likely have a problem. Read the license and respect it.

In your specific case the question is whether the terms under which you have access to the proprietary module let you do what you want to do. I don't know that - it entirely depends on your agreement with them. Furthermore the choice of packaging application does not affect that - the copyright issue is between you and the people who own that proprietary module, the packaging application doesn't enter into it.

Therefore, as I think your lawyer will verify, there was no legal reason for you to have chosen not to use PAR. That was a misunderstanding.

  • Comment on Re: Why I chose PerlAPP rather than PAR.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Why I chose PerlAPP rather than PAR.
by jdtoronto (Prior) on Oct 29, 2004 at 23:47 UTC
    Her response is this:

    "It seems that the text which was passed to us by an employee was in fact from the Tkpp.pl programme, not the module itself. In that case a re-reading of the actual PAR distribution and the Artistic License confirms what you have been told.

    If the text we were given was in fact from the PAR distribution, not from just one component of it then the interpretation we discussed earlier would have been irrefutable.

    In the case of the payment processing module, their license is clear - you can distribute it as part of any application provided that your application only attempts to use it to communicate with their servers and no others."

    So, my apologies colleagues, I was mistaken as to the source of the license term cited. Thus their is no reason to choose one over. jdtoronto

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://403887]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (4)
As of 2019-12-15 10:18 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?