At 10:42 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote:
>The original cannot be restricted. A derivative could be. My
>understanding is that the intent of the AL is to keep there from
>being a proprietary derivative named perl with restricted source.
>(If it is not named perl then that is explicitly allowed.)
Right, and there is no (to my knowledge) any restricted derivative named
"perl". There is ActivePerl, but again, "ActivePerl" ne "perl". It is a
different name. If one wants to stop the inclusion of the name within a
different name, then you need to use trademark (as already noted) or simply
add that to the licensing.
>True. However it would take some poking around through
>ActiveState's Perforce server to see if all of the changes to
>Perl that go into their point releases are released in source
>form. If not then getting those bug fixes outside of the main
>release schedule might be hard. (I suspect you could actually
>find them though, and if not then that is more likely an
>oversight than malicious intent.)
Yes, but I don't care. If they want to have something not called "perl"
(which is what they have) and not release all the changes as source, then
that is their business. If the community doesn't like it, it will release
its own Win32 version, actually called "perl," to compete.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
