On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:33, Randal L. Schwartz <mer...@stonehenge.com> wrote:
>>>>>> ""Chas" == "Chas Owens" <chas.ow...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> "Chas> Neither license prevents people from selling the software in question,
> "Chas> but both require that source be available (or made available), so
> "Chas> anyone charging an arm and a leg for it will rapidly find free
> "Chas> versions being made available (see CentOS and RedHat for an example).
>
> No, the Artistic license is much more like a MIT/BSD-style license, which
> basically permits the recipient of your work nearly every right you also
> have. The recipient is free to incorporate your work into their commercial
> product, and never share the source code of the derived work. Some of us
> consider this a Good Thing.
snip
I missed option c when I skimmed it.
3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, provided
that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and
when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the
following:
a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them
Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet or
an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major archive
site such as uunet.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include
your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package.
b) use the modified Package only within your corporation or organization.
c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict
with standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide
a separate manual page for each non-standard executable that clearly
documents how it differs from the Standard Version.
d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.
--
Chas. Owens
wonkden.net
The most important skill a programmer can have is the ability to read.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org
For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org
http://learn.perl.org/
