Chris Nandor wrote:
>At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
> >Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
>should
> >not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
> >entity, based on the GPL, to restrict the redistribution of Perl, which
>is a
> >right seemingly granted by the AL.
>
>No. No one can restrict the redistribution of Perl. You can always go to
>CPAN and get the source and distribute it in any way you want to, and no
>one can stop you. What you say is patently false.
I think David is confused about this situation, but what he
said is not entirely false. Anyone who wants can get Perl,
make changes under the GPL, and release the hacked up version
under the GPL. You would now have a GPL-only fork of Perl
which it is unlikely anyone would actually use, but you would
have a version of Perl with rather more strict redistribution
requirements than the current one.
I take it as virtually axiomatic that if there are two free
versions of Perl out there, the one that has Larry behind it
will be the one that people will choose. :-)
The issue of dual licensing with the GPL leading to patches
that cannot go into Perl doesn't bother me in the slightest.
However creating potential problems for people who want to
use Perl to create GPLed programs would, and dual licensing is
a very clean way to ensure that is not an issue.
Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
