At 02:04 PM 9/26/00 -0500, David Grove wrote:
> > 4) Someone writes a new version of piece X of perl, for example a better
> > optimizer or a backend that interfaces into a compiler's back end. (Like
> > GCC or Digital's GEM compiler backend) Perl *is* the whole point here.
>I'm not familiar with this particular issue. However, this is not perl.

It is, though. If it walks like perl and talks like perl and, more 
importantly, if the output runs like perl, then it is.

If someone builds an optimizing compiler for perl, they ought to be able to 
call it that and distribute the thing as well as its output without the AL 
being unconditionally imposed on the output. They shouldn't be able to call 
it the one true perl, but neither should they be forced to call it "Fred".

>markets itself as perl itself, then I consider it a violation of conscience.
>Perl is on CPAN. Anything else, any variation of it, is not perl, and should
>not claim to be perl.

I'll disagree here, but that's fine.

This is making me think more and more we need to trademark "perl" and let 
it be licensed. If someone wants to distribute something that claims to be 
perl without the AL/GPL imposed on it then they ought to be allowed to as 
long as its not deceptive, and it may be that having some sort of licensing 
body would be in order.


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

Reply via email to