Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

At 07:32 PM 9/24/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: [Major snippage here] >>That the license places any obligations or exercises any level of control >>over the output (the equivalent of the .o file) is a *big* issue. It would >>mean in many cases that back ends not distributed with perl (with >>corresp

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

Dan Sugalski wrote: > >At 04:58 PM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: >>Dan Sugalski wrote: >>>At 11:01 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: [...] >>How many versions can you find of diff, awk, sed, etc? > >Yeah, but isn't that supposed to be a good thing? :) Only if you don't have to port scripts bet

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > >In general, I think this new license is bit more convoluted then it needs >to >be. I proposal generally the following measures. I am editing it up >today, >and I will post a version of my proposal tommorrow. I am waiting for this before trying to draw up any proposal

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think that you actually can have trademarks on the same name in > different areas as long as there is no possible confusion... Correct, at least in the US. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

In general, I think this new license is bit more convoluted then it needs to be. I proposal generally the following measures. I am editing it up today, and I will post a version of my proposal tommorrow. First, in a couple of different places, it unnecessarily makes restatements of what is alre

RE: Hopefully last draft of AL

Garrett Goebel wrote: > >From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > At 05:18 PM 9/22/00 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote: [...] >It doesn't look like Larry'd have a good chance of trademarking "Perl" >anyways. Then again, I don't know much about trademarks. I think that you actually can have tr

RE: Hopefully last draft of AL

From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > At 05:18 PM 9/22/00 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote: > > From: Ben Tilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Garrett Goebel wrote: > > > > > > > > Can't a trademark be used to protect "Perl", even if the > > > > code is in the public domain? > > > > > > Yes

RE: Hopefully last draft of AL

At 05:18 PM 9/22/00 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote: >From: Ben Tilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Garrett Goebel wrote: > > > > > > Can't a trademark be used to protect "Perl", even if the > > > code is in the public domain? > > > > Yes..if someone is ready to actively defend it. Can you pictu

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

At 04:58 PM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: >Dan Sugalski wrote: >>At 11:01 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: >>>Dan Sugalski wrote: At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: > THE ARTISTIC LICENSE > VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000 Given how

RE: Hopefully last draft of AL

From: Ben Tilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Garrett Goebel wrote: > > > > Can't a trademark be used to protect "Perl", even if the > > code is in the public domain? > > Yes..if someone is ready to actively defend it. Can you picture > Larry sending a ton of "cease and desist" letters over e

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Can't a trademark be used to protect "Perl", even if the code is in the > public domain? Probably. It definitely can still be used in that fashion if Perl were released under an MIT-style license, which I'd recommend over public domain, since that's

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

Dan Sugalski wrote: >At 11:01 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: >>Dan Sugalski wrote: >>> >>>At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: THE ARTISTIC LICENSE VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000 >>> >>>Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative

RE: Hopefully last draft of AL

Garrett Goebel wrote: > >From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > >Heh. One of my goals was to find a way to state what I thought > > >was the core feeling of the Artistic License in a sound way. > > >Saying that you are public domain is fine except that it invites > > >every variant

RE: Hopefully last draft of AL

Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 02:29 PM 9/22/00 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote: > >>Can't a trademark be used to protect "Perl", even if the code is in the >>public domain? > >Dunno. Probably, but I'm not a lawyer, and that might be taking things to >places we'd rather not go. IANAL eit

RE: Hopefully last draft of AL

At 02:29 PM 9/22/00 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote: >From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > >Heh. One of my goals was to find a way to state what I thought > > >was the core feeling of the Artistic License in a sound way. > > >Saying that you are public domain is fine except that it i

RE: Hopefully last draft of AL

From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >Heh. One of my goals was to find a way to state what I thought > >was the core feeling of the Artistic License in a sound way. > >Saying that you are public domain is fine except that it invites > >every variant to call itself perl, which is som

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

At 11:01 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: >Dan Sugalski wrote: >> >>At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: >>> THE ARTISTIC LICENSE >>> VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000 >> >>Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license: >> >>"The contents

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

At 11:33 -0400 2000.09.22, Ben Tilly wrote: >Please see the offered translation. I did. >And if still you don't like the way that this layperson wrote >it, then come up with your own draft that says what you want >and sounds like what you want. In case you didn't notice, No. >putting togeth

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

Chris Nandor wrote: > >At 11:01 -0400 2000.09.22, Ben Tilly wrote: > >Dan Sugalski wrote: [...] > >>Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license: > >> > >>"The contents of this archive, except for packages in the ext/ directory > >>explicitly marked otherwise, are placed

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

At 11:01 -0400 2000.09.22, Ben Tilly wrote: >Dan Sugalski wrote: >> >>At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: >>> THE ARTISTIC LICENSE >>> VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000 >> >>Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license: >> >>"The contents

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

Dan Sugalski wrote: > >At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: >> THE ARTISTIC LICENSE >> VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000 > >Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license: > >"The contents of this archive, except for packages in the ext/ dire

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: > THE ARTISTIC LICENSE > VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000 Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license: "The contents of this archive, except for packages in the ext/ directory explicitly marked othe

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

Ben Tilly wrote: >OK, here is what I hope is the last draft of the AL before I >send out an RFC. I will send humorous commentary around >shortly. OK, here is the "translation" as well. If people like it my goal is to make the structure of the legalese a little easier. One comment I have receiv

Hopefully last draft of AL

OK, here is what I hope is the last draft of the AL before I send out an RFC. I will send humorous commentary around shortly. Detail to note. If this holds up legally, it is a context- sensitive license which is both incompatible with the GPL and itself. If men cannot serve two masters who dis