At 7:29 PM -0400 on 7/17/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
>PERL: "Package" refers to the collection of Perl-kit files distributed
>by the Copyright Holder, and derivatives OF THAT COLLECTION OF FILES
>created through textual modification.
>
>Alain: The Perl licencing only applies to the files distributed by the
>Copyright Holder.
Alain, it must apply to derivatives, too. Otherwise I can make a one-byte
change to the source code of OpenCard and it is no longer covered by the
OpenCard licence -- arguably, I can do anything I want with it.
>
>PERL:"Standard Version" refers to such a Package if it has not been
>modified, or has been modified as specified below.
>
>Alain: The Standard Version of OC is the version of OC officially
>mandated by the OODL and subject to its licencing terms. It is this
>version that can and should be redistributed freely.
No. Leave it as is. We should be able to distribute patches.
>
>PERL: "Copyright Holder" is whoever is named in the copyright or
>copyrights for the Perl package.
>
>Alain: We haven't worked this one out yet. Can we collectively be
>designated as the Copyright Holder, without incorporating ourselves?
Any lawyers around?
>PERL: You will not be required to justify it to the Copyright Holder,
>but only to the computing community at large as a market that must bear
>the fee.)
>
>Alain: To proceed otherwise would burden both the User and the
>Copyright Holder with lots of potential litigation. Good clause!
Yep. It basicly says you can sell it for whatever you can get away with.
>
>PERL: 2. You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other
>modifications derived from the Public Domain or from the Copyright
>Holder. A Package modified in such a way shall still be considered the
>Standard Version.
>
>Alain: OK.
Not with the way you wanted to change the definition of standard version,
above. That definition has the "or has been modified as specified below" to
allow this clause -- otherwise, the licence contradicts itself.
>PERL: ... and provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
>
>Alain: Only ONE option is necessary for conformance, and concerns only
>the files distributed by the Copyright Holder.
Huh? I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.
>
>PERL: b) use the modified Perl Package only within your corporation or
>organization.
>
>Alain: Ok so you have modified or specialized the Standard Version of
>OC which gives your enterprise a strategic advantage. You're allowed to
>keep it, without sharing it with the community, as long as you're not
>selling it.
No, that's not what this clause is for. This clause says that you can keep
your own version with non-free changes and still call it "perl" within your
organization.
For example, this clause is what would allow us to expirament with using
Perl to build the OpenCard interpreter. We can distribute it amongst
ourselves (only within our organization) and still call it perl. Or, we
could mnake small changes to perl and do the same.
But we can't give it to everyone -- that'd create confusion.
>
>PERL: 4. You may distribute the programs of this Perl Package in object
>code or executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the
>following:
>
>Alain: Only ONE option is necessary for conformance, and concerns only
>the files distributed by the Copyright Holder.
Ak! Alain, I think you're trying to reword it. But the origonal language is
clearer and sounds better, too. And it has been looked over by lawyers.
>PERL: b) accompany the distribution with the machine-readable source of
>the Perl Package with your modifications.
>
>Alain: This wouldn't be my choice.
Does not have to be.
>
>PERL: c) accompany any non-standard executables with their
>corresponding Standard Version executables, giving the non-standard
>executables non-standard names, and clearly documenting the differences
>in manual pages (or equivalent), together with instructions on where to
>get the Standard Version.
>
>Alain: Quite reasonable, especially if "documenting the differences"
>does not imply that you have to expose HOW you did it. Just the WHAT
>and the WHY.
All it means is that you must give the what. You don't (and should not)
have to justify it (why) or give source (how).
The idea is to prevent confusion.
>PERL: ... However, you may distribute this Perl Package in aggregate
>with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly
>commercial) software distribution provided that you do not advertise
>this Perl Package as a product of your own.
>
>Alain: Excellent! This was the main sticking point for me. All that is
>required is that I don't fraudulently advertise that OC is my product.
Good. This one does not have any problems with what's covered and what is not.
>
>PERL: ... provided these subroutines do not change the language in any
>way that would cause it to fail the regression tests for the language.
>
>Alain: It is laudable to protect the integrity of OC, but this
>particular segment of the clause could be difficult to implement. As
>someone recently asked "Does that mean that we have to formally define
>OC", and it would also be an enforcement nightmare.
We don't have to do a formal definition. We just have to provide regression
tests.
And enforcement is not that bad anymore. I never thaught I'd say this, but
that Digital Millinium Copyright Act could come in handy. All one of us
would need to do would be to file an accusation -- and that'd take care of
it. In most cases, they'd not want to go to court over it.
Especially since all the need to do is rename the dang thing. A lot cheaper
than a court battle!
>Alain: I vote for the Perl Artistic Licence.
Glad to have you aboard.
