Developing commercial software

[itistoday]

For a language to become popular, it needs as few impediments as possible. The GPL is one such impediment.

[cormullion]

My interest in this topic is purely academic - but I'm curious - what do the other scripting languages do for licensing - Perl, Python, Ruby, Lua, etc? If different from newLISP, what  does newLISP's licence deliver that the others miss out on?

[itistoday]

My interest in this topic is purely academic - but I'm curious - what do the other scripting languages do for licensing - Perl, Python, Ruby, Lua, etc? If different from newLISP, what  does newLISP's licence deliver that the others miss out on?

All except for Perl appear to be liberal licenses that don't require publishing your source:



http://www.lua.org/license.html">http://www.lua.org/license.html

http://www.python.org/psf/license/">http://www.python.org/psf/license/

http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt">http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt

http://dev.perl.org/licenses/">http://dev.perl.org/licenses/



Lutz has said that he specifically "interprets" the GPL as Larry Wall does:

For those of you that choose to use the GNU General Public License, my interpretation of the GNU General Public License is that no Perl script falls under the terms of the GPL unless you explicitly put said script under the terms of the GPL yourself.



Furthermore, any object code linked with perl does not automatically fall under the terms of the GPL, provided such object code only adds definitions of subroutines and variables, and does not otherwise impair the resulting interpreter from executing any standard Perl script. I consider linking in C subroutines in this manner to be the moral equivalent of defining subroutines in the Perl language itself. You may sell such an object file as proprietary provided that you provide or offer to provide the Perl source, as specified by the GNU General Public License. (This is merely an alternate way of specifying input to the program.) You may also sell a binary produced by the dumping of a running Perl script that belongs to you, provided that you provide or offer to provide the Perl source as specified by the GPL. (The fact that a Perl interpreter and your code are in the same binary file is, in this case, a form of mere aggregation.)



This is my interpretation of the GPL. If you still have concerns or difficulties understanding my intent, feel free to contact me. Of course, the Artistic License spells all this out for your protection, so you may prefer to use that.

I'm not sure I understand what he's referring to by "Perl source" there. Is he referring to the source of the Perl interpreter or to the Perl scripts you wrote? If it's referring to the source of the interpreter, then it seems like you should be able to commercially use and embed the newLISP interpreter with your code and not need to provide the source for your scripts.



It'd be great if someone could clear this point up. Am I interpreting it correctly?

[TedWalther]

I would assume, because Larry Wall spoke of "mere aggregation", that he means the source of Perl, not your own source.



If this is Lutz position as well, then that opens up a lot of doors; to wit, distribute your binary application but include the GPL license for newLISP with the offer to provide the source for newLISP (but not necessarily your applications source)



Is this right Lutz?

[HPW]

I would say no.

What I was told from Lutz, I can not deliver/install newLISP (the DLL) with a commercial application installer.

I had to provide the seperate newLISP installer and had to search/find the newLISP.dll via the enviroment-variable on the system.

So I have 2 installer and have to explain that the seperate newLISP-install is needed for the commercial application to run.



A real embedding with a LGPL-licensed DLL would allow each appliction to install and use its own version.

No danger that a later installed generic newLISP would break an older code.

[kanen]

I have long considered this argument, as the creator of commercial software, which used newLISP. In the previous case, we had a search engine and it did not require us to share the source code or distribute anything to a client, it was all server-side.



This worked, but we were considering the idea of distributing a version for internal use at client sites. As a long-time hater of the GPL (it is more restrictive than you think), I almost moved from newLISP to another language. In the end, I chose to stay with newLISP because the company didn't require client distribution.



Now, I am in another position, equally frustrating.



I am developing a two-version network security platform. The first is open source and can be downloaded, modified, whatever. It's free and open.



The second version (and how I make money off the product), is a custom hardware-based network security product which *includes* the open source version, with some special tweaks for the hardware. I am running OpenBSD on the hardware (free, non-restrictive license) and it boots into newLISP directly, then starts to load my software.



I believe (and my lawyer believes) I am not violating the GPL because:



1. The customer is buying the hardware, with the software pre-installed.



2. It comes with newLISP (GPL) pre-compiled, but all license information remains intact and the sources are unmodified.



3. My own source code is being interpreted by a non-modified version of newLISP and is not compiled, as a binary, with newLISP (i.e. sources are separated).



4. The product is a solution, like a Laptop with Linux pre-installed, and I am not charging for the GPL software.



I am hoping Lutz agrees this is not a violation of his license or of the GPL. I'd prefer if newLISP had a less restrictive license, but that likely will never happen.



Hope this helps those out there who -- like me -- are pulling their hair out about how to continue to develop in newLISP, support newLISP and make money off their efforts. :)

[cormullion]

Hmm. When a licence starts to restrict the honest efforts of users to use and promote a software package, you have to ask (again) what are the outweighing benefits to the author that makes it worth the risk. Is newLISP sometimes in danger of licensing itself out of consideration - what's the justification for that? (I'm just curious...)

[itistoday]

I sent Lutz an email asking for comment and here's his response:

People should just goto http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html and

read up on related questions.



Regarding linking the newLISP script and newLISP executable or

shipping it together, it is pretty much like HPW stated it in the

thread: you have to ship and install your closed source script and

newLISP separately, because newLISP is not LGPL.



I am not participating in GPL related threads, because they tend to be

endless. Most questions can be cleared up reading the GPL FAQs.



Cheers



Lutz

[Lutz]

From: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... ameMachine">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine

Can I have a GPL-covered program and an unrelated non-free program on the same computer?



    Yes.