On Monday, September 25, 2000 7:01 AM, Chris Nandor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
> >Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
> >should
> >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 is a
> >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'm talking about binary compilations of that source, not the source itself. 
The problem exists on the Win32 front particularly because of the lack of a 
compiler on every Win32 system. In fact, the compiler being most actively 
maintained (or maintained at all in any efficacious manner) is among the most 
expensive on the market. This restriction of redistribution of the perl core 
binary _is_ taking advantage of the situations and licenses unfairly and 
contrary to the design principles of the GPL and the nature of open source.

I have a compiler. I have several. I don't use company X's distribution. I 
don't have to. I do very well from source. However, I'm not the average Win32 
user. The average Win32 user depends on binaries. I do however depend on source 
code changes, or rather should be allowed to depend upon them, when they 
include important fixes and patches that aren't available on CPAN.

> And whether an entity is corporate or not is entirely irrelevant and just
> betrays your biases.

"Irrelevant", of course. However, I'm speaking of a particular problem area 
that does truly exist.

> >The conbination of the GPL's freedom and the
> >AL's loopholes have been a primary vehicle in damage to certain areas of the
> >perl language and communities,
> I'd ask you to give one example of such damage, but I realize that would be
> a fruitless effort.  Suffice it to say that no such damage has existed,
> ever.

However, it should be clear that if company X wants to distribute a binary 
compile and limit its redistribution contrary to the concept of free software, 
solely to become the "one and only" source for Perl on Win32, that's not a good 
thing. This says nothing of derivative works, just Perl itself.

Again, we have an opportunity to correct a loophole that has allowed this 
problem to exist.

Why would anyone with conscionable motives want to limit the redistribution of 
free software? There is no conscionable motive that I can think of, and even if 
there were, the good of freeing us from this problem would surely outweigh any 
bona-fide good motives for such limitations.

Reply via email to