The Perl6 RFC Librarian quoth:
>
>This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
>=head1 TITLE
>
>The Artistic License Must Be Changed
[...]
Please add some reference to the fact that over the course of
Perl's history it was changed, and therefore there is now some
question as to whether copyright holders have actually agreed
to the text as it now stands.
Additionally I would like to see a "scare" scenario or two
shown of how one could wind up complying with the terms of the
license but defeat the intention.
One such scenario would be releasing modifications under
Sun's Community Source License. Clearly Freely Available,
but clearly ineligable for inclusion into Perl.
A second is to rename all of the executables, document the
changes,and upon installation create symlinks making them
available under the original name. You need to document the
changes though.
The third is even nastier. Set up two groups. The first
modifies all of the executables in the Package to new names
and documents it. Then distributes to the second group
under the Artistic License. The second group modifies all
of the executables *back* to the original names and documents
the change from the version they received (which was never
public). The twice modified version is now released under
virtually any license you want, without source.
My attempted license tries to address all three of these
attempted attacks.
Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
