RE: RFC idea

On Monday, September 25, 2000 9:16 AM, Chris Nandor [SMTP:[email protected]] 
wrote:

> Yes, but no one can restrict the redistribution of Perl (or perl).  You
> can, perhaps (though I am not entirely convinced), restrict the
> distribution of some specific distribution, but not perl (or Perl) itself.
> David makes it sound like no one can distribute a Win32 perl because
> ActiveState restricts ActivePerl distribution (which is, of course, what he
> is referring to, though he doesn't come out and say it).  I know that he
> doesn't believe no one can distribute a Win32 perl, but that is what he
> actually states: that a company can restrict redistribution of perl.  And
> they can't.

You think my "company X" is ActiveState? Evidently you've recognized a problem 
area that I may not have seen before, and appear to have given your own 
concrete example that you said didn't exist. Thank you. That lessens my 
workload a little.

However, I am speaking in generalities. If it's perl, it's redistributable. If 
it isn't redistributable, it isn't perl. This include both binaries and source, 
since binaries are only translations of source into another language for people 
without the appropriate translation dictionaries (compilers). The current 
licensing schemes defy this basic logic, which is roughly the same logic that 
we all give that says that "Perl isn't CGI, and CGI isn't Perl".

Since this is a forum about licenses, you may want to put your ActiveState pros 
and cons to the side for the moment and discuss a problem that exists in the 
current licensing scheme.