Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:20:06 -0400
From: DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OODL: OODL - OC Licence = Perl Artistic
Reply-to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________
Alain: Preliminary comment concerning my last post which Anthony
replied to, and that I am now replying to in turn. I was NOT suggesting
that we modify the Perl Artistic Licence, except for the name
substitution (of course). My comments were merely my interpretation of
the different clauses of the Perl Artistic Licence. In other words, if
my interpretation of the clauses of the Perl Artistic Licence is
correct, then I vote for the adoption of this licence, as-is.
__________
>PERL: �Package� refers to the collection of Perl-kit
>�les distributed by the Copyright Holder, and
>derivatives OF THAT COLLECTION OF FILES created through
>textual modi�cation.
>Alain: The Perl licencing only applies to the �les
>distributed by the Copyright Holder.
Anthony: 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.
Alain: Yes, it must apply to derivatives too. But let�s be clear about
what derivaives that we are talking about. We are talking about
�derivatives of the collection of �les distributed by the Copyright
Holder�. Derivatives thus refers to modi�cations made to OC itself. It
does not refer to the documents authored with the help of OC.
__________
>PERL:�Standard Version� refers to such a Package if it
>has not been modi�ed, or has been modi�ed as speci�ed
>below.
>Alain: The Standard Version of OC is the version of OC
>of�cially mandated by the OODL and subject to its
>licencing terms. It is this version that can and should
>be redistributed freely.
Anthony: No. Leave it as is. We should be able to distribute patches.
Alain: OK, we will make an exception for patches. Or is it an exception
if we had Standard Versions of OC Patches, of�cially mandated by the
OODL, as above?
__________
>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.)
Anthony: Yep. It basically says you can sell it for whatever you can
get away with.
Alain: That wouldn�t be my spin on it, but I will leave it at that.
__________
>PERL: 2. You may apply bug �xes, portability �xes and
>other modi�cations derived from the Public Domain or
>from the Copyright Holder. A Package modi�ed in such a
>way shall still be considered the Standard Version.
>Alain: OK.
Anthony: Not with the way you wanted to change the de�nition of
standard version, above. That de�nition has the �or has been modi�ed as
speci�ed below� to allow this clause � otherwise, the licence
contradicts itself.
Alain: I have not proposed any changes to the licence at all.
Alain : You may be right, though, that bug-�xes and such should be
considered modi�cations to the Standard Version, until such time that
such modi�cations are not of�cially mandated by the Copyright holder.
__________
>PERL: � and provided that you do at least ONE of the
>following:
>Alain: Only ONE option is necessary for conformance,
>and concerns only the �les distributed by the
>Copyright Holder.
Anthony: Huh? I�m afraid I don�t understand what you�re saying.
Alain: Although there are 4 alternatives in the licencing clause, you
don�t have to abide by all 4 of them. Just ONE is necessary. You can
pick the one you want and conform nonetheless to the conditions of the
licence.
Alain: This licencing clause only applies to the �les of the Standard
Version, and to the Standard Patches too, but does not apply to the
elements enumerated in clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Perl Artistic Licence.
__________
>PERL: b) use the modi�ed Perl Package only within your
>corporation or organization.
>Alain: Ok so you have modi�ed 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.
Anthony: No, that�s not what this clause is for. This clause says that
you can keep your own version with non-free changes�
Alain: This is indeed the main point of the clause.
Anthony: �and still call it �perl� within your organization. For
example, this clause is what would allow us to experiment with using
Perl to build the OC interpreter. We can distribute it amongst
ourselves (only within our organization) and still call it perl. Or, we
could make small changes to perl and do the same.
Alain: What is in a name? (e.g. benefits of name-use are minor or nil)
Anthony: But we can�t give it to everyone � that�d create confusion.
Alain: Yup.
__________
>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 �les distributed by the
>Copyright Holder.
Anthony: Ak! Alain, I think you�re trying to reword it. But the
original language is clearer and sounds better, too. And it has been
looked over by lawyers.
Alain: I am NOT trying to re-word anything. I am giving my
interpretation of the clause. That�s it.
__________
>PERL: b) accompany the distribution with the machine-
>readable source of the Perl Package with your
>modi�cations.
>Alain: This wouldn�t be my choice.
Anthony: Does not have to be.
Alain: You�re absolutely right. I only need to pick ONE of the other
alternatives.
__________
>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.
Anthony: 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).
Alain: We agree that the HOW is safe-guarded, which was the critical
one that we neeeded to agree upon. The WHY is optional but should
naturally be added. Otherwise, you inform the person that such-and-such
has been changed WITHOUT indicating why this change is advantageous!!
It�s your choice though.
__________
>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.
Anthony: 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
>dif�cult to implement. As someone recently asked �Does
>that mean that we have to formally de�ne OC�, and it
>would also be an enforcement nightmare.
Anthony: We don�t have to do a formal de�nition. We just have to
provide regression tests.
Alain: So what are Regression Tests? What will they require of us?
Anthony: And enforcement is not that bad anymore. I never thought 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 �le an accusation � and
that�d take care of it. In most cases, they�d not want to go to court
over it.
Alain: Let me get this straight. Say I program a C subroutine for OC
which I believe is not covered by the OC licence (clauses 6 and 7).
Consequently, I don�t share the subroutine with the Community. But, lo
and behold, someone from the OC community does some regression tests on
my subroutines, the tests fail, and the person files an accusation.
What then?
__________
>Alain: I vote for the Perl Artistic Licence.
Anthony: Glad to have you aboard.
Alain: So what is the consensus among our other members?
__________
Salutations everyone. Sorry for the length.
Alain Farmer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
