>I posted it to the list. Check the archives:
I know, I still have it local. I just wasn't at home at that moment.
Now, I have it here, so:
>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.
>
>3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Perl Package in any way,
>provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how
>and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the
>following:
Does 3 here also apply to 2? I want any changes and bug fixes to be also
noted so we're not blamed for someone else fouling up. 2 seems to be
problematic to me in this regard. We might have to add a paragraph that
states that *any* modifications have to be made clear no matter what.
>provided these subroutines do
>not change the language in any way that would cause it to fail the
>regression tests for the language.
Does the above mean we'll have to come up with a formal language spec? Or
does this mean supplied subroutines have to be made in a way that when they
are removed the whole shebang works as before?
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
