Ben Tilly wrote:
> >I believe that is correct as well.
>
> Is subset really the word? Should I choose to accept and redistribute
> using the AL, I should be able to distribute under any terms I choose that
> are consistent with the distribution requirements of the AL. This may
> include adding licensing terms that are not to be found in the AL.
You can never add additional licensing terms, unless the license
specifically grants you the right to do so.
> An example of why someone would want to do this would be if (like oraperl
> did) they are distributing a version of Perl that is modified and linked
> to other code with other restrictions. Allowing this is part of the
> intent of the AL, and so this is an important example to keep in mind.
In that case, they are not changing the terms of Perl. They are choosing
the "AL" path of the disjunctive license for the perl code (i.e., the code
on which they hold no copyright), and choosing their own license for the
code they wrote.
Since the AL allows:
* distribution of the perl code without source
* derived works of the perl code to be combined with works under
some proprietary software licenses (under certain conditions).
They are able to do what they do. They haven't changed the terms of the AL,
they are using the terms of the AL to do something it permits.
>
> >It seems to me that we should ask all perl developers to trust Larry
> >completely in matters of licensing, and thus copyright assign to him so he
> >can make changes as necessary.
> My proposal would leave developers with more of a say and Larry
> with less paperwork. Since I don't think that Larry would want
> to make any more controversial licensing changes than he has to,
I still haven't seen your proposal on this issue exactly spelled out, but I
may have missed it. It sounds like an important proposal, and probably
deserves its own RFC, as these issues are seperate from actual license changes.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
