YES. This is starting to make better sense and provide for some protections.
Comments inserted.
> Permissions for Redistribution of Modified Versions of the Package as Source
>
> (4) You may modify your copy of the source code of this Package in any way
> and distribute that Modified Version (either gratis or for a
> Distribution Fee, and with or without a corresponding binary, bytecode
> or object code version of the Modified Version) provided that You
> clearly indicate what You made to the Package, and provided that You
> do at least ONE of the following:
>
> (a) make the Modified Version available to the Originator(s) of the
> Standard Version, under the exact license of the Standard
> Version, so that the Originator(s) may include your modifications
> into the Standard Version (at their discretion).
>
> (b) modify any installation scripts and procedures so that
> installation of the Modified Version will never conflict with an
> installation of the Standard Version. Each program installed by
> the Modified Version must include clear documentation describing
> how it differs from the Standard Version. In addition, your
> Modified Version must bear a name that is different from the
> Standard Version.
>
> (c) permit and encourage anyone who receives a copy of the Modified
> Version to make the source code of the Modified Version available
> to others under the exact license of the Standard Version.
Good
> If Your Modified Version is in turn derived from a Modified Version
> made by a third party, then You are still required to ensure that Your
> Modified Version complies with the requirements of this license.
Very Good
> Permissions for Redistribution of Non-Source Versions of Package
>
> (5) You may distribute binary, object code, bytecode or other non-source
> versions of the Standard Version of the Package, provided that you
> include complete instructions on where to get the source code of the
> Standard Version. Such instructions must be valid at the time of Your
> distribution. If these instructions, at any time while You are
> carrying our such distribution, become invalid, you must provide new
> instructions on demand or cease further distribution. If You cease
> distribution within thirty days after You become aware that the
> instructions are invalid, then You do not forfeit any of Your rights
> under this license.
Yup
> (6) You may distribute binary, object code, bytecode or other non-source
> versions of a Modified Version provided that You do at least ONE of
> the following:
>
> (a) include a copy of the corresponding source code for the Modified
> Version under the terms indicated in (4).
>
> (b) ensure that the installation of Your non-source Modified Version
> does not conflict in any way with an installation of the Standard
> Version, and include for each program installed by the Modified
> Version clear documentation describing how it differs from the
> Standard Version. In addition, your Modified Version must bear a
> name that is different from the Standard Version.
>
> (c) ensure that the Modified Version includes notification of the
> changes made from the Standard Version, and offer the
> machine-readable source of the Modified Version by mail order.
HUH? What happened to 4c?
how about
<begin>
(c) permit and encourage anyone who receives a copy of the Modified
Version to make the binary of the Modified Version available
to others under the exact license of the Standard Version.
</end>
If I can download source, I can download binaries, right? What does this do?
I don't think this accomplishes the protection of our language the way I think
you
are intending it to.
> Permissions for Inclusion of the Package in Aggregate Works
>
> (7) You may aggregate this Package (either the Standard Version or
> Modified Version) with other packages and distribute the resulting
> aggregation provided that You do not charge a licensing fee for the
> Package. Distribution Fees are permitted, and licensing fees for
> other packages in the aggregation are permitted. Your permission to
> distribute Standard or Modified Versions of the Package is still
> subject to the other terms set forth in other sections of this
> license.
>
> (8) In addition to the permissions given elsewhere by this license, You
> are also permitted to link Modified and Standard Versions of this
> Package with other works and distribute the result without
> restriction, provided You have produced binary program(s) that do not
> overtly expose the interfaces of the Package. This includes
> permission to embed the Package in a larger work of your own without
> exposing a direct interface to the Package. This also includes
> permission to build stand-alone binary or bytecode versions of your
> scripts that require the Package, but do not otherwise give the casual
> user direct access to the Package itself.
I don't really understand what this is trying to say (7-8). Companies like
ActiveState
deserve to make a buck (see, Pudge, I said something right), and need to be
able
to distribute proprietary software for a fee if that floats their boat.
However, when it
comes to perl itself, they should be required to provide freely redistributable
sources
and binaries for perl itself under the same license, to prevent them from going
off
onto a proprietary tangent of the language itself. If nothing else, they should
need to
provide it as an optional available distribution (plural if source _and_
binary) apart from
their aggregates, without charge. It can't be an option that they proprietarize
the
source and binary of perl itself just because they add a little doodad. At no
point
should doodads be construed sufficient to compose a new perl in its own right.
It's a doodad, and if they want to proprietarize it, fine. But they shouldn't
be able
to proprietarize perl just because they proprietarize the doodad that they're
packing
with perl, which should be free and distributable separately _in_its_entirety_.
Let ActiveState make their PerlScript, PerlEX, and pseudocompiler if they want,
and
charge whatever they want for it. But if perl is to be free, it needs to be
redistributable
without any loopholes providing them the ability to proprietarize the language
itself, or
make a community dependent upon themselves for the core language.
This appears to provide such a loophole that needs to be closed.
However, we need to provide the ability to distribute "packaged"
(pseudocompiled
executable) scripts (like PerlAPP and Indy's Perl2Exe) without this type of
limitation, else we're limiting the community itself and not the ones we find
ourselves
having to defend against.
> Items That are Never Considered Part of a Modified Version Package
>
> (9) Works (including, but not limited to, subroutines and scripts) that
> you have linked or aggregated with the Package that merely extend or
> make use of the Package, but are not intended to cause the Package to
> operate differently from the Standard Version, do not, by themselves,
> cause the Package to be a Modified Version. In addition, such works
> are not considered parts of the Package itself, and are not bound by
> the terms of the Package's license.
Yes, all in all, this is getting much, much better.
