> Um, distribution under the GPL has to include offers of source.
> In fact the terms of the GPL are all designed to promote a very
> specific philosophy that is counter to traditional commercial
> practices!

True, but it hasn't always happened.

> >If perl is to be called free software, there can be no limitation on
> >redistribution of compiled binaries. This incorrigible business practice
> >has
> >become an epitome of how some open source licenses do not work.
> If Perl is to meet either the Debian or OSI definitions of
> free or open source (respectively) software it cannot restrict
> the sale of compiled binaries.

I'm not talking about the sale of binaries made with Perl, but the sale of Perl 
itself. No, not even the sale of it, but the redistributability of it. To my 
understanding, that IS the GNU license. However, you make one tiny change and 
it becomes something totally new and the source can be privatized under the AL 
to the point where you can require that it not be redistributed under your 

Example, company X takes perl, adds a nominal gizmo to it, and distributes the 
binaries along with an installer and a helpfile index. Little more. This is 
marketed as Perl, but the user is forbidden to redistribute it. Actually this 
isn't an example and it isn't theoretical. It's true and it breaks the 
principles of free software. Under the AL, they appear to have the right to do 
this, whereas under the GPL, I don't believe they could. My legal 
interpretations of the licenses may be off, but the actions are true, and need 
to be prohibited.

Basically, "if you add a gizmo and want to limit it, it isn't perl. If you want 
to call it perl, then it's redistributable and you need to provide source".

However, I've seen another message last night that said this issue is being 
approached from another angle also, and since I started in here late, I'll read 
back a little.

> Please read the draft that I put out of an AL.  I suspect
> that it does indeed provide the restrictions you are looking
> for.  In fact I think it is the only idea under discussion
> which could be palatable to Perl developers that comes close
> to doing so.

Yes, I agree that I have to catch up a bit. I've simply voiced an ongoing 
concern of mine. We have an opportunity to correct a long-standing error that 
has allowed bad things to happen, and I spoke out of turn.

Reply via email to