Re: Making sure "Perl" means "Perl" (was Re: licensing issues)

--goZsXHFuzBpHaNGl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Ben Tilly <[email protected]> wrote:

> I still think a copyright that offers a contract (ie the
> same structure as the GPL) can do it.  

The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the
proposed AL-2.0 and the original AL.

I believe (IANAL) that End User License Agreements can be contracts,
particularly under UCITA, but I don't think that's a direction we want to go
in with a license for Perl.


> This, of course, presupposes that the legal system is actually capable of
> providing a solution.  My impression (not knowing Larry directly) is that
> he would not be by personality inclined to seek legal redress even if it
> were clearly within his rights to do so.

Well, I don't think there's much point in inferring what Larry will do.  An
RFC concerning the trademark/service mark is under his advisement---we'll
just have to see what he says.

-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn  -  http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn

--goZsXHFuzBpHaNGl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE6Y2wY53XjJNtBs4cRAgeFAJ9Q3in6gJ5uUTkOqe36wzJlo8QQTACfRHzQ
been+Q1qY6cyHdnsU7QZRGQ=
=h9fi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--goZsXHFuzBpHaNGl--