From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> >Heh. One of my goals was to find a way to state what I thought
> >was the core feeling of the Artistic License in a sound way.
> >Saying that you are public domain is fine except that it invites
> >every variant to call itself perl, which is something Larry went
> >out of his way to avoid.
> >
> >I think that was very, very wise.
>
> Perhaps. I'm rather fond of keeping at least some level of
> control myself, but at this point I just don't think that
> the possible abuses are worth the hassles that putting
> reasonable limits takes, nor the restrictions it would
> possibly place on legit usages.
>
> You don't, after all, find too many people trying to pass
> themselves off as Shakespeare or Lewis Caroll... :)
Can't a trademark be used to protect "Perl", even if the code is in the
public domain?
Garrett
