Subject: Re: Licenses vs. public domain
From: Ben_Tilly@trepp.com
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 09:59:10 -0400


Simon Cozens wrote:
> Ben_Tilly@trepp.com (lists.fsb):
> > However it is illegal for Microsoft to try
> > and take the source, modify it, and then sell that as Perl.
>
> http://www.activestate.com/Corporate/Media_Center/News/Press959117519.html
> We'll see.

They can do anything they want with Visual Perl.  Personally I suggest
leaving it in the trash. :-)  Then again I am not in their target
audience for that product.  (There probably are ActiveState people who
are reading this list.  If so then a piece of advice.  Make some of
your COM stuff CORBA compliant...)

This is clearly outside the scope of the Artistic license.  As are:

 - MacPerl
 - mod_perl
 - Oraperl
 - PerlApp
 - perlex
 - PerlCOM
 - PerlCtrl
 - PerlScript
 - sybperl

(Most of those were just taken off of ActiveState's website.  I have
seen more variations on the theme, but I don't want to bother with
tracking them down.)

The purpose of the Artistic License is very simple.  Allow people to do
anything they want with Perl *EXCEPT* muddy the water about what Perl
itself is.  (Think Microsoft, embrace, extend, and all that.)  Hip
would have never got into trouble if they had called their port
something like WinPerl.  (But then Microsoft would have had one less
check-mark to put on IIS...)

Indeed I have not heard much in the way of complaining about their other
activities, like the ones listed above.  And for all of the /. nonsense
about their latest contract-work on Perl that Microsoft has paid for,
that is all being rolled back into Perl and a good chunk of it (like
support for Unicode-aware filesystems) will be useful elsewhere.

Cheers,
Ben