Subject: Re: Meaning of "combined work"?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:41:48 -0800
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:41:48 -0800
on Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 01:02:04PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull (
> >>>>> "kms" == Karsten M Self <> writes:
>     kms> The Artistic license defies ready categorization.
> Seems to me it comes pretty close to MIT X.  The requirement on use of
> the name Perl seems like a pretty obvious extension of the "don't use
> our reputation in advertising" clause; perl's reputation is likely
> more important to Larry than his personal one.
> What other important difference do you have in mind?

(3)(a) would appear to allow licensing of dervative works under any
terms without restriction, following the intermediary step of a Public
Domain work.  E.g.:  Release a derived work under PD, then release a
derivation of this under any licensing terms desired.  The MIT/BSD model
at least has persistant terms.  The Artistic license attempts to put
trademark-like limits on the use of the term "Perl" but IMO fails on
account of (3)(a).  Separate trademark management would be a better
tack, for much the same reasons I suggest a similar course for Sun and
its compliance issues.

Karsten M. Self <>
 Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc.            
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?      There is no K5 cabal

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]