On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:27:28AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
> At 09.19 -0500 01.14.2001, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >That situation definitely had ActiveState violating the
> >spirit of the Artistic License, whether or not they were
> >violating the letter.
> They violated neither the spirit nor the letter.

Incorrect. Indeed, the entire point of the OnePerl thingy was to
resolve the violation!

If what you say is true, the whole discussion can be cleaned up by you telling
us which part of clause three they actually did fulfil:

    a) made their modifications freely available.
    b) used package internally only.
    c) provided *both* modified and unmodified versions with separate names
       and separate documentation.
    d) make other arrangements with Larry.

They certainly didn't do a, b, or c. So that leaves d.

"IT support will, from 1 October 2000, be provided by college and
departmental card locks." - J-P Stacey

Reply via email to