At 7:39 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
>I proposed, and Tom Christiansen for one agreed, that the
>point of allowing modifications that are made freely
>available is that they are then available for Larry to
>consider adding to the standard version. I don't think that
>the current language has captured that concept, and the
>result is a bug.
Aha. No. Tom Christiansen only agreed with when you said that changes in
anything "called Perl" should be able to be incorporated back into Perl.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with what the AL calls "Freely
Available." He did not comment on that at all, because your post that he
agreed with did not discuss that at all. You don't seem to get it. Your
post there dealt with a package, called Perl. Freely Available in the AL
only deals with separately released modifications.
Please don't misrepresent Tom.
>>"Freely Available" in the Artistic License is never once used to refer to
>>the Package, but is only used to refer to modifications to the Package. So
>>yes, that would violate the license, in letter and spirit.
>>
>Releasing a patch to Perl in the same way that their changed
>spec was released would satisfy section 3a.
OK. More power to them.
>Accompanying
>the changed version with a self-extracting zip that comes
>with a BS copyright notice could satisfy section 4b. Are we
>going to be happy about this?
I am not going to care. Why should I? It can never be actually
incorporated into perl.
>I may distribute a Standard Version under 4a. So I do.
>
>I may aggregate distributed software under 5. So I will.
>
>I aggregate a modified version. Under 4a I am allowed to
>distribute this because I am going to distribute a Standard
>Version. (Nowhere does it say that the Standard Version
>used to satisfy section 4a must be the version that you are
>actually shipping under the permission in section 4!)
Wow. You are just seeing things that aren't there.
>>No, because in this case the Package HAS been modified, through addition.
>>That's the point.
>>
>Under section 5 that is explicitly allowed.
Then it is no longer the Standard Version.
>>Of course. If you want copyleft, you know where to find it ...
>>
>If you want a BSD license, you know where to find it...
I don't, thanks.
>The idea of the AL is to provide the bare minimum in
>the way of rules needed for Larry to be able to retain
>artistic control. The current license does not
>succeed in that idea.
We have many years of proof that you're wrong.
>>The entire Package is still subject to the original license. You cannot
>>change that.
>>
>No?
Correct.
>I can put my modifications under Sun's Community Source
>License, and now I can meet my modification obligations under
>item 3a, and my distribution arrangements under 4b.
Once again, the phrase "Freely Available" in the AL ONLY refers to
modifications released BY THEMSELVES. You seem to be forgetting this,
habitually. Nowhere are you given permission to change the license of the
Package. You are only given permission to release your changes as "Freely
Available." NOT the entire Package.
>As long as I meet my obligations under the AL there is no
>requirement that I use the AL license.
Since the Copyright Holder owns the Package, and you do not, you cannot
change the license without explicit permission.
>If this seems strange to you, may I remind you that there
>are licenses (eg the BSD) which have as their main point
>that you should be able to ship modified versions under
>practically any license you want.
Yes, that may be explicitly allowed, of course.
>Under copyright law if I own a copy of the software I can
>use it. Look up fair use.
The only person who owns the software is Larry.
>Most commercial licenses get around this by not letting you
>own your copy (instead it is leased). But the Artistic
>license doesn't say you cannot own it, so you can own your
>copy of Perl. That copy is yours.
Then you literally can do anything you want with it, if you own it. But
you don't.
>Your not knowing
>what fair use is
But I do.
>As for my interpretation, do a search for "doctrine of first
>sale".
No.
>Believe whatever you want. It won't hold up.
Yes, it will.
>In particular sections 3d and 4d are effectively meaningless.
No, they aren't.
>You may need to make alternate arrangements to modify and
>distribute under other terms. But that doesn't mean that
>Larry has the power to make them.
Yes, he does.
>In fact he clearly does not.
Yes, he does.
>And will not unless the AL has
>goodies added allowing him to.
Yes, it does.
>You may believe that there is an implicit agreement there
>but I would like to see the judge who would agree with
>you on that one.
It's common sense. The AL grants the Copyright Holder -- which is clearly
stated to be, in the case of Perl, Larry, whether you think it would hold
up or not -- authority to make these decisions. If you don't like that,
then you shouldn't allow your code to be included. If you have a problem
with the AL, you should ask or refuse to allow your code to be included.
You can't get much more implicit than that.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
