I have also included my reply to "Can we ignore licensing?" below.
At 10:38 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
>1. Rephrase it so that it is clearly a copyright notice with
> an offered contract available for anyone who wishes to do
> things normally restricted by copyright. Like the GPL.
Why?
>2. Freely Available is too vague. Is it freely available if
> I release my changes in a form with a copyright notice
> saying (like Sun does) that you need to submit all of your
> changes to my changes back to me? (Under the definition in
> the AL, yes.)
If you can asnwer that question, then how can you say it is too vague?
> I think that 3a should be modified to
> something like "Released to a public forum under terms that
> are acceptable for reincorporation into the Standard Version.
> This means that it must fit all licenses that the Standard
> Version is available under. Public domain will suffice but
> is not necessary."
I think if Larry had meant that, he would have said that. If that were in
there, I personally would not use the "new" AL.
>3. I think 3d should simply be "other arrangements." Should a
> consultant build a custom version of Perl for someone else,
> distribution might not ever be an issue for either, yet they
> may wish permission to modify.
That use is already covered under 3b. The consultant is working for the
organization in question at the time of the work for hire, and it therefore
falls under "your organization." Or you could flip it around, and say that
the corporation itself is "you." Either way it is fine and covered under
3b.
>4) The permission for 4a) should only cover distributing the
> standard version.
It explicitly only does.
> As matters stand it is legal to have a
> distribution that distributes the standard version in some
> hidden place, but actually installs a piece of garbage.
If it installs a piece of garbage, then it is not the Standard Version:
"Standard Version" refers to such a Package if it has not been
modified, or has been modified in accordance with the wishes
of the Copyright Holder as specified below.
If you add more to it, then it is no longer the Standard Version. If you
change the installation, it is no longer the Standard Version.
> Combined with an abuse of 3a), this could allow some nasty
> games to be played...
What abuse of 3a? If you distribute under section 3, you must make
prominent what modifications you've made. How can that be abused?
>5) I think that 4b is too dangerous. Both Microsoft and Sun
> have played licencing games where you can see but not touch.
> Machine readable source that is combined with restrictive
> licensing does not meet the intent. The purpose of this
> section is to allow ports. (eg Macperl.) I think this
> should have added that it must be distributed on the same
> licensing terms as the original.
The Package must ALWAYS be distributed under the same licensing terms as
the original. Unless it is public domain or you are the copyright holder,
you cannot change the licensing terms. I am not sure what your point is,
maybe I am missing it.
>6) Item 8 belongs as a list item in item 4.
No, because section 4 is about distributing in object or binary form, which
is not necessarily what section 8 refers to.
> The AL cannot
> redefine "distribute".
It does not attempt to define it. It attempts to say what shall be
construed as distribution, not what will be defined as distribution. And
it can do that, and does do that.
>6) Item 6 should include linked to this Package to extend it.
> Between when the AL was written and the present this has
> become a common thing to do (think modules), and should be
> explicitly allowed. Note that this is not covered under
> item 7.
Yes it is. A pure-Perl module falls under "comparably compiled subroutines
in other languages."
>7) The GPL offers advice on how to apply it to your own
> software. The AL should likewise. In particular since
> the GPL is an offered contract, the disclaimer of warranty
> (section 10 of the AL, sections 11 and 12 of the GPL) does
> not clearly hold if incorrectly applied.
I don't think that matters in the least. So a user does not accept the
license, but then sues because there is no warranty outside of the license?
If that's what you're saying, it doesn't make sense.
At 10:52 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote in "Can we ignore licensing?":
>Suppose I buy a copy of Perl on a CD. Under copyright law it
>is fair use for me to resell that copy at *any* price I want.
>That contradicts item 6 of the AL.
You mean section 5? No, it does not. I don't see why you say that it does.
>Incidentally items 3d and 4d effectively cannot be met if you
>have many copyright holders (which Perl does).
No, Larry is the Copyright Holder:
"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.
Copyright Holder refers to the copyright holder for the _package_ itself,
not the individual pieces of it.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
