At 10:48 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>Please don't misrepresent Tom.
>>
>I am representing my understanding of what Tom said.
All Tom said is "I agree," basically. And what you said in that post
differs from what you said in the one I was responding to, because in the
former you were addressing distributions of Perl, and in the latter,
addressing separate modifications.
>distribute modifications to something called Perl. Therefore
>the use of the phrase "Freely Available" there should (by my
>understanding, which I believe was confirmed by Tom) be the
>guarantee that Larry Wall may make use of any changes people
>make to things that they distribute under the name "Perl".
If he had wanted it to say that, he would have said that. He didn't. I
won't presume that is what he meant.
>> >>"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.
>>
>My concern is preventing Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. You
>have just OKed Embrace and Extend. That is the means, and
>Extinguish is the goal.
Perl 5 exists for people to embrace and extend.
I don't give a damn what someone else's goal is. That's the point of
"freedom." Let them do what they want to do, as long as they don't mess
with what I am doing. The AL does not allow "extinguishing," so I don't
care if that is what someone wants.
>> >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.
>>
>You should care because we now have something shipping by the
>name of Perl, which is changed from Perl, whose changes we
>cannot legally read (and contribute later to Perl).
No. That is not allowed by the license. If it goes by the name of Perl,
then that is not allowed, in letter and spirit.
>Is a Standard Version being shipped along with instructions
>on where to get the Standard Version?
>
>Yes.
No. It is not a Standard Version if it has been modified.
>> >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.
>>
>Excuse me?
The AL has done its job since it was introduced in the early part of 1990s.
>> >>The entire Package is still subject to the original license. You cannot
>> >>change that.
>> >>
>> >No?
>>
>>Correct.
>>
>Incorrect. The part of the package that I get from you is
>still subject to your license. The part that I change is
>subject to mine. I may choose to distribute under different
>terms.
Then it is not the Standard Version.
>I put modifications out at no charge under a restrictive
>license. I distribute with all modifications available
>in machine readable form, but with the same restrictive
>license attached. Your code remains under the AL. I
>claim the package as a whole is not.
You're wrong. It is my package. I own it. You cannot relicense it.
>I claim my modifications are allowed by 3a. The complete
>text of my modifications are available at no charge.
Fine by me.
>I claim my distribution is allowed by 4b. The distribution
>is accompanied by the machine readable source with my
>modifications.
But those modifications are still subject to section 3, where you must
insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when you
changed that file.
>I claim that I have the right to put my contribution under
>any license I want.
Yes. But not the Package as a whole.
>>Since the Copyright Holder owns the Package, and you do not, you cannot
>>change the license without explicit permission.
>>
>Excuse me? The copyright holder holds the copyright but
>*I* own the software.
No you don't. It is the property of the copyright holder.
>Furthermore I own copyright on the
>code that I wrote and added.
Of course.
>>The only person who owns the software is Larry.
>>
>That isn't what the law says.
It is.
>> >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.
>>
>Go buy a book. You own it. You can take it, mutilate it,
>sell it, give it away. That book is yours. When you die it
>is a possession that can be inherited and taxes can be paid
>on that inheritance. There can be no doubt about your
>owning that book.
Yes, but not the contents of the book. Yes, you own the actual bits the
software is stored on, perhaps, but not the software itself. Perhaps you
were thinking of bits? If so, I am not sure why, since it doesn't appear
to be relevant to this discussion.
>I am already convinced that you have not a clue about
>copyright law.
And I am convinced that statements like this prove you to be an asshole.
See, assholes attack people instead of issues. What non-assholes realize
is that it is sufficient to say "I think your interpretation is wrong," and
asshole-like to say "you have not a clue." But this is your modus
operandi, so I should not be surprised, and I should have learned my lesson
by just ignoring you.
>Show me text in the AL that you think grants Larry Wall that
>authority.
If you insist.
"Copyright Holder" is whoever is named in the copyright or
copyrights for the package.
"Package" refers to the collection of files distributed by the
Copyright Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files
created through textual modification.
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:
d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.
4. You may distribute the programs of this Package in object code or
executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.
README:
Perl Kit, Version 5.0
Copyright 1989-1997, Larry Wall
All rights reserved.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
