Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 7:39 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >I proposed, and Tom Christiansen for one agreed, that the
> >point of allowing modifications that are made freely
> >available is that they are then available for Larry to
> >consider adding to the standard version. I don't think that
> >the current language has captured that concept, and the
> >result is a bug.
>
>Aha. No. Tom Christiansen only agreed with when you said that changes in
>anything "called Perl" should be able to be incorporated back into Perl.
>But that has absolutely nothing to do with what the AL calls "Freely
>Available." He did not comment on that at all, because your post that he
>agreed with did not discuss that at all. You don't seem to get it. Your
>post there dealt with a package, called Perl. Freely Available in the AL
>only deals with separately released modifications.
If you wish to change the name you can meet your obligations
under the current license by sections 3c and 4c. Both Tom
and I agree with that.
>Please don't misrepresent Tom.
>
I am representing my understanding of what Tom said. If that
is a misrepresentation then I look forward to corrections
from him. I am quite sure that he is capable of speaking for
himself.
The only reason for the permission in 3a is for the benefit
of people who intend to distribute (ie cannot use 3b) and do
not intend to rename (ie cannot use 3c). In other words 3a
is *meant* to apply only to people who wish to make and
distribute modifications to something called Perl. Therefore
the use of the phrase "Freely Available" there should (by my
understanding, which I believe was confirmed by Tom) be the
guarantee that Larry Wall may make use of any changes people
make to things that they distribute under the name "Perl".
>
> >>"Freely Available" in the Artistic License is never once used to refer
>to
> >>the Package, but is only used to refer to modifications to the Package.
>So
> >>yes, that would violate the license, in letter and spirit.
> >>
> >Releasing a patch to Perl in the same way that their changed
> >spec was released would satisfy section 3a.
>
>OK. More power to them.
>
My concern is preventing Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. You
have just OKed Embrace and Extend. That is the means, and
Extinguish is the goal.
As long as artistic control is desired, that is not OK in
my books.
>
> >Accompanying
> >the changed version with a self-extracting zip that comes
> >with a BS copyright notice could satisfy section 4b. Are we
> >going to be happy about this?
>
>I am not going to care. Why should I? It can never be actually
>incorporated into perl.
>
You should care because we now have something shipping by the
name of Perl, which is changed from Perl, whose changes we
cannot legally read (and contribute later to Perl). What kind
of artistic control is left?
If you don't care about people shipping something called Perl
whose changes you are not allowed to see and cannot be
incorporated into Perl, then there is no real reason not to
use a BSD license and be done with it. You are not really
accomplishing much more.
>
> >I may distribute a Standard Version under 4a. So I do.
> >
> >I may aggregate distributed software under 5. So I will.
> >
> >I aggregate a modified version. Under 4a I am allowed to
> >distribute this because I am going to distribute a Standard
> >Version. (Nowhere does it say that the Standard Version
> >used to satisfy section 4a must be the version that you are
> >actually shipping under the permission in section 4!)
>
>Wow. You are just seeing things that aren't there.
>
No, you are.
Is a Standard Version being shipped along with instructions
on where to get the Standard Version?
Yes.
Then you are allowed to distribute.
>
> >>No, because in this case the Package HAS been modified, through
>addition.
> >>That's the point.
> >>
> >Under section 5 that is explicitly allowed.
>
>Then it is no longer the Standard Version.
The whole aggregate is indeed not the Standard Version. But
a Standard Version has been shipped. Please don't express
disbelief. Tell me how you would convince a judge that a
Standard Version has not in fact been shipped. If you
cannot then a judge would have little choice but to conclude
that the obligations under section 4a have been met.
>
> >>Of course. If you want copyleft, you know where to find it ...
> >>
> >If you want a BSD license, you know where to find it...
>
>I don't, thanks.
>
Neither am I looking for a GPL license. Please do not assume
otherwise.
>
> >The idea of the AL is to provide the bare minimum in
> >the way of rules needed for Larry to be able to retain
> >artistic control. The current license does not
> >succeed in that idea.
>
>We have many years of proof that you're wrong.
>
Excuse me?
To the best of my knowledge we have exactly one case where
the intent of the AL was challenged. That case was a small
company known as ActiveState which produced a windows port
without providing source-code. In their defence they had
indeed renamed the executables. (They had to add .exe and
.bat various places to make them executable. The name by
which you called the executable did not change.)
Despite many heated words, they really had no interest in
trying to harm Perl, the situation was resolved peacefully
(an investment by O'Reilly in ActiveState helped), the
changes that could legally be merged into Perl were, and
ActiveState now maintains the Standard Version of Perl.
Perl has been through somewhere between zero and zip in the
way of hostile challenges like the dispute between Kerberos
and Microsoft, or the dispute between Microsoft and Sun over
Java. I rather suspect that it would not survive such
challenges very well at all.
Either way it has not been tested. (And hopefully never
will be.)
>
> >>The entire Package is still subject to the original license. You cannot
> >>change that.
> >>
> >No?
>
>Correct.
>
Incorrect. The part of the package that I get from you is
still subject to your license. The part that I change is
subject to mine. I may choose to distribute under different
terms.
Certainly plenty of distributions of software modified from a
BSD original is as a whole no longer under a BSD license!!!
>
> >I can put my modifications under Sun's Community Source
> >License, and now I can meet my modification obligations under
> >item 3a, and my distribution arrangements under 4b.
>
>Once again, the phrase "Freely Available" in the AL ONLY refers to
>modifications released BY THEMSELVES. You seem to be forgetting this,
>habitually. Nowhere are you given permission to change the license of the
>Package. You are only given permission to release your changes as "Freely
>Available." NOT the entire Package.
>
You are simply not reading clearly. I have forgotten
nothing.
I put modifications out at no charge under a restrictive
license. I distribute with all modifications available
in machine readable form, but with the same restrictive
license attached. Your code remains under the AL. I
claim the package as a whole is not.
We go to the judge.
I claim my modifications are allowed by 3a. The complete
text of my modifications are available at no charge.
I claim my distribution is allowed by 4b. The distribution
is accompanied by the machine readable source with my
modifications.
I claim that I have the right to put my contribution under
any license I want. I have the entire body of copyright
law on my side there.
Give me exact words you would say to the judge to dispute
any of those three claims. If you cannot then you don't
have a leg to stand on and will lose the case.
>
> >As long as I meet my obligations under the AL there is no
> >requirement that I use the AL license.
>
>Since the Copyright Holder owns the Package, and you do not, you cannot
>change the license without explicit permission.
>
Excuse me? The copyright holder holds the copyright but
*I* own the software. Furthermore I own copyright on the
code that I wrote and added. You can claim otherwise
until you are blue in the face, but it won't hold up in
court.
>
> >If this seems strange to you, may I remind you that there
> >are licenses (eg the BSD) which have as their main point
> >that you should be able to ship modified versions under
> >practically any license you want.
>
>Yes, that may be explicitly allowed, of course.
>
Read the BSD license again and show me where they
explicitly allow anything of the sort. You will find no
permission given to do any such thing for the simple
reason that there is no need to provide it. It is there
by default for them, and it is there by default in the
AL unless the AL says otherwise.
>
> >Under copyright law if I own a copy of the software I can
> >use it. Look up fair use.
>
>The only person who owns the software is Larry.
>
That isn't what the law says.
>
> >Most commercial licenses get around this by not letting you
> >own your copy (instead it is leased). But the Artistic
> >license doesn't say you cannot own it, so you can own your
> >copy of Perl. That copy is yours.
>
>Then you literally can do anything you want with it, if you own it. But
>you don't.
>
Go buy a book. You own it. You can take it, mutilate it,
sell it, give it away. That book is yours. When you die it
is a possession that can be inherited and taxes can be paid
on that inheritance. There can be no doubt about your
owning that book.
You cannot set up a printing press, start running off copies,
and sell them. If you try the copyright holder can and will
sue you. And they will win.
I think you don't understand what ownership is.
>
> >Your not knowing
> >what fair use is
>
>But I do.
You have shown no sign of understanding.
> >As for my interpretation, do a search for "doctrine of first
> >sale".
>
>No.
>
Why not? You doubted my interpretation. I told you how in
5 minutes with Google you can verify my interpretation.
Do you still doubt my interpretation?
>
> >Believe whatever you want. It won't hold up.
>
>Yes, it will.
>
Why not ask a lawyer about that?
>
> >In particular sections 3d and 4d are effectively meaningless.
>
>No, they aren't.
>
I am already convinced that you have not a clue about
copyright law. Unless someone who does disagrees with
my understanding I will disregard your claim. Ditto the
several that follow which I am removing on Larry's right
to decide for other people the disposition of their
copyrights on parts of Perl.
>
[...]
> >You may believe that there is an implicit agreement there
> >but I would like to see the judge who would agree with
> >you on that one.
>
>It's common sense. The AL grants the Copyright Holder -- which is clearly
>stated to be, in the case of Perl, Larry, whether you think it would hold
>up or not -- authority to make these decisions. If you don't like that,
>then you shouldn't allow your code to be included. If you have a problem
>with the AL, you should ask or refuse to allow your code to be included.
>You can't get much more implicit than that.
Your common sense differs from mine and my understanding of
the law.
Show me text in the AL that you think grants Larry Wall that
authority.
Regards,
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.
