David Grove wrote:
>
> > Um, distribution under the GPL has to include offers of source.
> >
> > In fact the terms of the GPL are all designed to promote a very
> > specific philosophy that is counter to traditional commercial
> > practices!
>
>True, but it hasn't always happened.
People do not always meet their obligations. Nor does the
GPL oblige you to release your source to the world.
> > >If perl is to be called free software, there can be no limitation on
> > >redistribution of compiled binaries. This incorrigible business
>practice
> > >has
> > >become an epitome of how some open source licenses do not work.
> >
> > If Perl is to meet either the Debian or OSI definitions of
> > free or open source (respectively) software it cannot restrict
> > the sale of compiled binaries.
>
>I'm not talking about the sale of binaries made with Perl, but the sale of
>Perl
>itself. No, not even the sale of it, but the redistributability of it. To
>my
>understanding, that IS the GNU license. However, you make one tiny change
>and
>it becomes something totally new and the source can be privatized under the
>AL
>to the point where you can require that it not be redistributed under your
>license.
Your understanding is incorrect. Under the AL your one tiny
change must include renaming the binary.
>Example, company X takes perl, adds a nominal gizmo to it, and distributes
>the
>binaries along with an installer and a helpfile index. Little more. This is
>marketed as Perl, but the user is forbidden to redistribute it. Actually
>this
>isn't an example and it isn't theoretical. It's true and it breaks the
>principles of free software. Under the AL, they appear to have the right to
>do
>this, whereas under the GPL, I don't believe they could. My legal
>interpretations of the licenses may be off, but the actions are true, and
>need
>to be prohibited.
The nominal gizmo (if it is new) and anything else that is not
part of Perl is someone else's work. Allowing that to be
proprietary not only is OK with the development community, but
explicitly allowing it is one of the reasons for not simply
sticking with a GPL.
The GPL is meant to promote Richard Stallman's philosophy. While
Larry Wall and key developers don't object to people living by
that philosophy, they do not want to force people to live by it
either.
>Basically, "if you add a gizmo and want to limit it, it isn't perl. If you
>want
>to call it perl, then it's redistributable and you need to provide source".
Well yes, that is the intent of the license I wrote. However
due to the limitations of the default install of Windows, the
source does few people much good.
[...]
> > Please read the draft that I put out of an AL. I suspect
> > that it does indeed provide the restrictions you are looking
> > for. In fact I think it is the only idea under discussion
> > which could be palatable to Perl developers that comes close
> > to doing so.
>
>Yes, I agree that I have to catch up a bit. I've simply voiced an ongoing
>concern of mine. We have an opportunity to correct a long-standing error
>that
>has allowed bad things to happen, and I spoke out of turn.
>
I suspect the error is not an error, and your definition of
"bad things" is not necessarily shared. As long as Larry is
really OK with giving away the store, I don't think anyone
else should object.
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.
