At 10:03 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Chris Nandor wrote:
>>At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
>> >Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
>> >not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
>> >entity, based on the GPL, to restrict the redistribution of Perl, which
>> >right seemingly granted by the AL.
>>No. No one can restrict the redistribution of Perl. You can always go to
>>CPAN and get the source and distribute it in any way you want to, and no
>>one can stop you. What you say is patently false.
>I think David is confused about this situation, but what he
>said is not entirely false. Anyone who wants can get Perl,
>make changes under the GPL, and release the hacked up version
>under the GPL. You would now have a GPL-only fork of Perl
>which it is unlikely anyone would actually use, but you would
>have a version of Perl with rather more strict redistribution
>requirements than the current one.
Yes, but no one can restrict the redistribution of Perl (or perl). You
can, perhaps (though I am not entirely convinced), restrict the
distribution of some specific distribution, but not perl (or Perl) itself.
David makes it sound like no one can distribute a Win32 perl because
ActiveState restricts ActivePerl distribution (which is, of course, what he
is referring to, though he doesn't come out and say it). I know that he
doesn't believe no one can distribute a Win32 perl, but that is what he
actually states: that a company can restrict redistribution of perl. And
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/