On Monday, September 25, 2000 9:54 AM, Chris Nandor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> At 10:42 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >The original cannot be restricted. A derivative could be. My
> >understanding is that the intent of the AL is to keep there from
> >being a proprietary derivative named perl with restricted source.
> >(If it is not named perl then that is explicitly allowed.)
>
> Right, and there is no (to my knowledge) any restricted derivative named
> "perl". There is ActivePerl, but again, "ActivePerl" ne "perl". It is a
> different name. If one wants to stop the inclusion of the name within a
> different name, then you need to use trademark (as already noted) or simply
> add that to the licensing.
That borders on giving the ability to be deceptive. Company X doesn't
distribute a product _named_ perl, but it claims to _be_ perl. On Win32, in
fact, it claims to be _the_perl_, the one and only, true and bona fide perl
distribution for Win32. Since it isn't "named" perl, the other is allowed?
