On Friday, September 29, 2000 9:31 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> David Grove wrote:
> > > > (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.
> >
> > Two parts to this. The first seems ambiguous, the second seems incomplete.
> >
> > First part is, "clear documentation describing how it differs". Does this
> > mean how to reproduce it in source, which would be good; or what features
> > have been added to make it a better perl, which would be bad. Perhaps a
> > couple extra words may clear that up.
>
> I don't think that is ambiguous. The documentation must describe how it is
> different. It'd be acceptable if someone said:
>
> "Foobar is like Perl, but has been changed to add the following things:
> * baz
> * blah
> "
>
> I don't think we should prohibit this.
I wasn't really talking about prohibiting it, but about preferring the other
meaning over this.
> > Second part is, "In addition"... this seems to be in addition to the whole
> > of
> > section 6, and not just to b).
>
> I fixed this in 2.0beta4, which I will publish tommorrow.
OK
> > might be in order, like, "substantially different, in that no part of the
> > name
> > may contain, or resemble, the name of the standard version".
>
> I didn't want to preclude things like "ePerl and oraperl". Clearly Larry
> permits such things, and I suppose that most of the community approves of it
> too.
Yes, and my PerlMagic. But we don't pretend to put out a better perl and hide
our sources or prohibit redistribution. What if the name thing was just not
necessary and it was just plain necessary that it be redistributable? Again, we
don't want to hurt anyone, but we do need to protect perl's interests and the
interests of the perl community (and maybe force some truth where there was
none before).
> I changed the verbiage to:
>
> (b) ensure that the installation of Your non-source Modified Version
> does not conflict in any way with an installation of the Standard
> Version, include for each program installed by the Modified
> Version clear documentation describing how it differs from the
> Standard Version, and rename your Modified Version so that the
> name is substantially different from the Standard Version.
how about, rather than "conflict in any way with an", using "in any way
preclude the"?
I don't know, it just doesn't feel like the holes are closed. How do we let
people "nab it and do good things with it", but prohibit people from "nabbing
it and doing bad things with it"? I still think that if it doesn't prohibit the
current abuses and protect us from future Microsoft-type tactics, it's not
worth the effort.
Straight out, is it possible to accomplish this goal and still please OSS reqs?
