David Grove wrote:
> > > (b) ensure that the installation of Your non-source Modified Version
> > > does not conflict in any way with an installation of the
> > > Standard
> > > Version, and include for each program installed by the Modified
> > > Version clear documentation describing how it differs from the
> > > Standard Version. In addition, your Modified Version must bear
> > > a
> > > name that is different from the Standard Version.
>
> Two parts to this. The first seems ambiguous, the second seems incomplete.
>
> First part is, "clear documentation describing how it differs". Does this
> mean how to reproduce it in source, which would be good; or what features
> have been added to make it a better perl, which would be bad. Perhaps a
> couple extra words may clear that up.
I don't think that is ambiguous. The documentation must describe how it is
different. It'd be acceptable if someone said:
"Foobar is like Perl, but has been changed to add the following things:
* baz
* blah
"
I don't think we should prohibit this.
> Second part is, "In addition"... this seems to be in addition to the whole of
> section 6, and not just to b).
I fixed this in 2.0beta4, which I will publish tommorrow.
> might be in order, like, "substantially different, in that no part of the name
> may contain, or resemble, the name of the standard version".
I didn't want to preclude things like "ePerl and oraperl". Clearly Larry
permits such things, and I suppose that most of the community approves of it
too.
I changed the verbiage to:
(b) ensure that the installation of Your non-source Modified Version
does not conflict in any way with an installation of the Standard
Version, include for each program installed by the Modified
Version clear documentation describing how it differs from the
Standard Version, and rename your Modified Version so that the
name is substantially different from the Standard Version.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
