On github, the LICENSE file only contains GPL, marking the repository as a GPL-licensed software.
However, the readme says exiftool is available under the Perl license.
What's correct? Or is it still dual license and I can choose whichever I like more? Ubuntu distributes exiftool as "Artistic or GPL-v1+". That would suggest the dual licensing is still correct.
Also, I have a question regarding the C++ API. As it is using exiftool through parsing the output of its binary, it should be safe to say that the GPL of exiftool doesn't need to be also on the C++ API, right?
Thanks for clarifications,
Martin
Hi Martin,
It is a dual license.
The C++ API is not GPL. I don't see why you think it needs to be.
- Phil
Thanks Phil. Maybe it would be reasonable to update the Readme to explicitly mention the dual licensing?
Regarding the C++ API - if you took exiftool as GPL, GPL is viral, so it needs all derivative works to be also GPL. Now, the inter-process boundary is often seen as a division line where this viral property stops. However, taking into account the fact that the C++ API is tightly coupled with the exiftool binary, I still see it as a gray zone because it is basically useless without the GPL'd binary. However, given that you are the maintainer of both, if you say it's no problem, then it's no problem :)
Thanks,
Martin
The ExifTool README states this:
QuoteThis is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
same terms as Perl itself.
and the Perl license says this:
Quote It is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either:
a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version, or
b) the "Artistic License".
I don't see the problem.
- Phil
Ah, right. I somehow made a connection that Perl license = Artistic only. If it covers both, then it's okay.
Thanks