Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >You were claiming that you don't care what people do as
> >long as they were not calling it Perl.  My point above
> >is that the only situation I am interested in involves
> >people distributing what they call Perl.
> >
> >You are clearly not even trying to respond to what I am
> >saying.
>I think Chris believes existing AL prevents them calling it Perl.
>In that "extended" package is not the package.
>So embrace is okay, extend is okay but forces name change, so extinguish
>is impossible as Perl is still there.
>It is of course possible to "make agreement with copyright holder(s)"
>to get extensions back into "Perl" - and we only do that if we
>like them.

My objection is that Chris is criticizing me for stuff that I
did not say which does not relate to anything I did say.

I agree with you on what Chris likely believes.  However after
close reading of the AL I believe that there are many ways that
an unscrupulous company could meet the letter of the license
and still distribute a polluted thing they call Perl whose
changes cannot be merged back into the real Perl.

That concerns me.
> >
> >I humbly request that anyone who thinks I am totally off
> >base here please inform me of that, publically or
> >privately.
> >
> >Until then:
> >
> >Later,
> >Ben

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

Reply via email to