At 6:43 PM -0400 on 7/19/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
>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.
Ok. Thankyou for clarifying.
>
>__________
>
>>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.
I believe there is a paragraph about the output. We should probably say
something special about standalones, though.
>
>__________
>
>>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?
Patches can also come from the "public domain".
>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.
Agreed.
>
>Alain: So what are Regression Tests? What will they require of us?
Basicly, we'd need to ship scripts which stress-test all the features of
OpenCard. This is not a big deal, as it is something we should do anyway,
for our own testing.
>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?
If you are distributing a modified version which fails the regression
tests, the copyright holder files a sworn statement to the ISP. The ISP
then takes it down. The person may then file his own statement that it does
not. If he does so, then it's up to the courts.
But must people would not even make us get legal when all they would have
to do is rename the program, fix the subroutine, or release its code.
