develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from September 2011

Re: Speak up now about your use of EBCDIC or WE WILL REMOVE IT in afuture release of Perl

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Craig A. Berry
Date:
September 30, 2011 14:42
Subject:
Re: Speak up now about your use of EBCDIC or WE WILL REMOVE IT in afuture release of Perl
Message ID:
CA+vYcVwy0o13FMQDUtoRWqy-LwtsYyT2Hhr1X6CiC-xWk0e=Ew@mail.gmail.com
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net> wrote:
> On 9/30/11 6:15 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Zefram<zefram@fysh.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There should be no 'forks' of open source projects maintained by
>>>> vendors.  That just leads into pain and suffering.
>>>
>>> But forking is their right, subject to the free software licenses.
>>
>> I'm not so sure what they're doing actually does comply with the
>> Artistic License.  Isn't there some business in there about either
>> renaming the modified version to something else or making the source
>> code changes available in some form?
>>
>> Not that enforcing compliance would be likely to help much as it would
>> probably result in a dump of changes that wouldn't be applicable to
>> blead and still couldn't be tested.
>
> I think you're confusing Artistic with Apache v1, and the typical obnoxious
> trademark licenses applied to products like Google® Chrome™® which are what
> lead it being called Chromium in Debian.  In Perl you just go ahead and
> chuck the patch listing in the appropriate header file and you're fine.  In
> fact a source attribution (plus making the source available, obviously) may
> be enough to comply.

OK, but when IBM says that their port (presumably the 5.8.7 one that's
available) is "separate from the open source code base" doesn't that
imply that the source is *not* available?

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About