At 02:29 PM 9/22/00 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>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?

Dunno. Probably, but I'm not a lawyer, and that might be taking things to 
places we'd rather not go.


--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk

Reply via email to