> As my Con Law professor was fond of saying, "Horse hooey!"*
Camel cookies.
;-)
> These types of issues are not nearly so clear cut as many company's
> would have people believe. E.g., O'Reilly is book publisher that
> engages in the business of publishing and selling books for a
> profit. They specifically are not a computer software company
> (well, they, of course, do or have developed some software
> for profit, but this fact does not reach to this example) nor do
> they possess a proprietary interest in Perl.
I'm afraid you don't know much about O'Reilly. O'Reilly does have both
proprietary interest in Perl products and financial interest in
compan(y|ies) who produce Perl software. (How many of the several current
valid Win32 Perl's do you see on the ORA website?) The argument could quite
well extend there to software.
> I suspect whomever made the above assertion was actually saying
> the *company* would consider it a violation and, therefore, seek
I'm not sure what the allusion was (horse or alpaca), but I do believe that
it was Edie I who was alluding. Ask her (but wear protective gear).
> ** The above said, please note, imo, this is decidely off-topic to
> this list, and I'd suggest any further discussion on the matter be
> taken off list. (I don't mean to arrogant the decisional authority
> of this list to myself; but only to be sensitive to the topic of the
> list and the expectations of list members.)
I asked about the meta group, but haven't heard anything yet. It really
belongs there. When possible, if there remains interest in the thread, I'll
redirect it there myself.
