Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:27:28AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
>> At 09.19 -0500 01.14.2001, Ben Tilly wrote:
>> >That situation definitely had ActiveState violating the
>> >spirit of the Artistic License, whether or not they were
>> >violating the letter.
>>
>> They violated neither the spirit nor the letter.
>
>Incorrect. Indeed, the entire point of the OnePerl thingy was to
>resolve the violation!
>
>If what you say is true, the whole discussion can be cleaned up by you telling
>us which part of clause three they actually did fulfil:
>
> a) made their modifications freely available.
They did meet (a) - sort of - via "or by allowing the Copyright Holder to
include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package."
but they did not just drop in. The OnePerl effort was really just
a very complicated merge of a much branched source tree.
(I was there...)
> b) used package internally only.
> c) provided *both* modified and unmodified versions with separate names
> and separate documentation.
> d) make other arrangements with Larry.
>
>They certainly didn't do a, b, or c. So that leaves d.
And Larry's take could be considered that they had to provide manpower
to assist in merge
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
