> > 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.
> Under (5b), they could make their proprietary software PerlEX and
> PerlScript.
> There is no way around that, I don't think, unless we use the GPL-only for
> perl, and that's surely not something the community wants!
> We could force them to call it FooEX and FooScript with a trademark on Perl;
> but that would be up to Larry to decide to go for the trademark.
> > This appears to provide such a loophole that needs to be closed.
> I don't see the loophole you are describing, at least not in (7) and (8).  I
> realize that (5b) is a so-called "loophole" that allows PerlEX and
> PerlScript, but I don't think the Perl community wants to close that
> "loophole"; to do so would be going the full copyleft route.

No, no. Don't misunderstand. I'm in _favor_ of ActiveState making a profit and 
selling this other software. What I'm looking to prohibit is the 
proprietarization of perl itself. Making tools that use perl helps the 
community, even if those products are commercial. Proprietarizing perl and 
selling it does nobody any good. We don't need forks, and we don't need 
proprietary, forced, de-facto standards.

Under the current license as I see it now, there's nothing to prevent AS or M$ 
from taking the perl source, proprietarizing it, and selling it as an improved 
perl in binary form, using predictable marketing and business methods, to make 
an entire community dependent upon them for perl itself. It just needs to be 
redistributable in source and binary if it's perl. Everything else is fine and 

Reply via email to