Subject: Re: Open Source and Government agencies
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:24:31 -0500

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>>>>> "Tim" == Tim O'Reilly <> writes:
>    Tim> I just recently got this query from a customer, and wondered
>    Tim> if anyone on this list had any comments, based on experience
>    Tim> with government agencies.  My inclination is to suggest he do
>    Tim> what Larry did, which is just to do it, but it sounds like
>    Tim> he's already asked his higher ups, so that is not an option.
>If you look at the Artistic License, sections 3c and 4c, you'll see
>that the code to Perl is so close to being in the public domain as to
>make no difference.  The only costs to someone who wants to make a
>proprietary version of Perl are (1) they may not call the executables
>"perl" etc, and (2) they must supply a CD-ROM (or whatever
>distribution media) containing Perl.  This may be how Larry Wall got
>past the government requirements.

Do you mean 3c and 4a?  If you apply 3c and 4c you have to distribute a
modified man page.  If you apply 3c and 4a you have to produce the man page
but you don't need to distribute it.

BTW when I read it closely I think that 4b is a mistake.  After all isn't
the binary "machine-readable source"?  I think they meant "human-readable"?

An important option for the original question.  Have the released program
be broken in some obvious way.  Trivially fixable, but not working.  Think
of this as encouragement to use the GPLed version. :-)