[Chicago-talk] Perl binaries

[Jonathan Rockway]

johnnnnnnn wrote:
> But the legal question remains: in what way is releasing binary forms
> of Perl apps illegal?

It's not.  This is why RMS doesn't like the Perl license; it explicitly
allows for binary-only distribution:

> 4. You may distribute the programs of this Package in object code or
> executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
> 
>     a) distribute a Standard Version of the executables and library files,
>     together with instructions (in the manual page or equivalent) on where
>     to get the Standard Version.
> 
>     b) accompany the distribution with the machine-readable source of
>     the Package with your modifications.
> 
>     c) give non-standard executables non-standard names, and clearly
>     document the differences in manual pages (or equivalent), together
>     with instructions on where to get the Standard Version.
> 
>     d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.

As long as you call your app something other than "perl" or "ls", you're
legally in the clear.

If, as a Free Software author, you want people using your library to
open source their application, license your module ONLY under the GPL.
Then binary-only redistribution becomes illegal (as long as you have
enough money to successfully sue the infringer, which you probably don't).

Expect resistance from other people though, as it's considered
"anti-social" to license your CPAN modules under something other than
the Perl license.  (I can see the value in this, which is why I
dual-license my modules.  But for everything else I stick with the GPL.)

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Jonathan Rockway

-- 
package JAPH;use Catalyst qw/-Debug/;($;=JAPH)->config(name => do {
$,.=reverse qw[Jonathan tsu rehton lre rekca Rockway][$_].[split //,
";$;"]->[$_].q; ;for 1..4;$,=~s;^.;;;$,});$;->setup;