David Grove wrote:
>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
> > >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
> > 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
>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
>expensive on the market. This restriction of redistribution of the perl
>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.
If they are distributing without an offer of source then they
are not distributing by the GPL.
As for compilers, if you are willing to stand up and maintain
any particular compiler, you are free to do so. In fact it
would be *good* if you did so.
>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
>user. The average Win32 user depends on binaries. I do however depend on
>code changes, or rather should be allowed to depend upon them, when they
>include important fixes and patches that aren't available on CPAN.
I would check whether they are available for your in the public
perforce server. If they are not then approach them under the
assumption that this is a simple oversight and not deliberate
on their part, and request that it be made so. CC p5p if you
>Why would anyone with conscionable motives want to limit the redistribution
>free software? There is no conscionable motive that I can think of, and
>there were, the good of freeing us from this problem would surely outweigh
>bona-fide good motives for such limitations.
Please don't assume bad motives until after you have made a
good-faith attempt to sort out the perceived situation.
I suspect the information is available in perforce, if it is
not that is likely an oversight. The information on how to
get those patches is not as widely available as it should be,
again politeness will probably resolve that.
Have you tried those avenues?
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at