Re: RPG 'CPAN' site

["James W. Kilgore" <qappdsn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John,

We should take this discussion to midrange-L or oss400, but here goes:

You are correct in that the GPL license would prohibit you from using
any toolkit code in a commercial product.

This is why I am against the GPL.

IMHO, a better license is one that allows someone to build upon, but
openly acknowledge and give credit where due (and maybe compensation),
the open source components.

For example, there was mention of having a service program to compute
interest as an open source project.  Now, one would be hard pressed to
create a financial package without such a feature.  The same could be
said for depreciation calculations or loan amortization.

Now, the above components do not a financial package make.  They are
mere cogs in the bigger machine.

Just as the current GPL license allows one to bundle all the open source
onto a CD for distribution -and- charge a fee for doing so, a license
that allows one to write a GUI or "wrapper" application around a set of
open source service programs should also be allowed.

Just imagine how silly this can get.  I have to GPL an entire
application because I want to use a GPL service program that centers a
string?  The open source community, and the commercial community, needs
to accept the fact that there is a pay for service mentality on this
planet.  I include the commercial community so that they are reminded
that they can not rape the open source community for profit.

We may not be talking big bucks here.  How about the "legal dollar" used
in the commercial code?  That is to say that a commercial product
provider pays to the contributor $1 for each program each time it is
licensed to the end user?  If the contributor absolutely, positively,
does not want compensation for their efforts maybe they can register
with a charity that all payments would to directed to.

J. Kilgore

P.S. I'm not a real lawyer.  I just play one on TV.