From mls@suse.de

Created by mls@suse.de

The perl-5.8.8 distribution contains vms/vms.c, which in turn contains
a section that is licensed under the following terms​:

  Copyright (C) 1989-1994 by
  Mark Pizzolato - INFO COMM, Danville, California (510) 837-5600

  Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this software,
  on condition that this copyright notice is included in the reproduction,
  and that such reproduction is not for purposes of profit or material
  gain.

  27-Aug-1994 Modified for inclusion in perl5
  by Charles Bailey bailey@​newman.upenn.edu

This is not compatible to the GPL or the Artistic License. Please try
to get the permission from Mark Pizzolato to distribute this code
under the perl license.

Flags:
    category=core
    severity=high

This perlbug was built using Perl v5.8.8 - Sat Nov 25 11:31:15 UTC 2006
It is being executed now by  Perl v5.8.8 - Sat Nov 25 11:26:35 UTC 2006.

Site configuration information for perl v5.8.8:

Configured by abuild at Sat Nov 25 11:26:35 UTC 2006.

Summary of my perl5 (revision 5 version 8 subversion 8) configuration:
  Platform:
    osname=linux, osvers=2.6.18, archname=i586-linux-thread-multi
    uname='linux eisler 2.6.18 #1 smp tue nov 21 12:59:21 utc 2006 i686 athlon i386 gnulinux '
    config_args='-ds -e -Dprefix=/usr -Dvendorprefix=/usr -Dinstallusrbinperl -Dusethreads -Di_db -Di_dbm -Di_ndbm -Di_gdbm -Duseshrplib=true -Doptimize=-O2 -march=i586 -mtune=i686 -fmessage-length=0 -Wall -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -g -Wall -pipe'
    hint=recommended, useposix=true, d_sigaction=define
    usethreads=define use5005threads=undef useithreads=define usemultiplicity=define
    useperlio=define d_sfio=undef uselargefiles=define usesocks=undef
    use64bitint=undef use64bitall=undef uselongdouble=undef
    usemymalloc=n, bincompat5005=undef
  Compiler:
    cc='cc', ccflags ='-D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -DTHREADS_HAVE_PIDS -DDEBUGGING -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -Wdeclaration-after-statement -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64',
    optimize='-O2 -march=i586 -mtune=i686 -fmessage-length=0 -Wall -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -g -Wall -pipe',
    cppflags='-D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -DTHREADS_HAVE_PIDS -DDEBUGGING -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -Wdeclaration-after-statement'
    ccversion='', gccversion='4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux)', gccosandvers=''
    intsize=4, longsize=4, ptrsize=4, doublesize=8, byteorder=1234
    d_longlong=define, longlongsize=8, d_longdbl=define, longdblsize=12
    ivtype='long', ivsize=4, nvtype='double', nvsize=8, Off_t='off_t', lseeksize=8
    alignbytes=4, prototype=define
  Linker and Libraries:
    ld='cc', ldflags =''
    libpth=/lib /usr/lib /usr/local/lib
    libs=-lnsl -ldl -lm -lcrypt -lutil -lpthread -lc
    perllibs=-lnsl -ldl -lm -lcrypt -lutil -lpthread -lc
    libc=/lib/libc-2.5.so, so=so, useshrplib=true, libperl=libperl.so
    gnulibc_version='2.5'
  Dynamic Linking:
    dlsrc=dl_dlopen.xs, dlext=so, d_dlsymun=undef, ccdlflags='-Wl,-E -Wl,-rpath,/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i586-linux-thread-multi/CORE'
    cccdlflags='-fPIC', lddlflags='-shared'

Locally applied patches:
    


@INC for perl v5.8.8:
    /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i586-linux-thread-multi
    /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8
    /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i586-linux-thread-multi
    /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8
    /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl
    /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i586-linux-thread-multi
    /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8
    /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl
    .


Environment for perl v5.8.8:
    HOME=/suse/mls
    LANG (unset)
    LANGUAGE (unset)
    LC_COLLATE=POSIX
    LC_CTYPE=de_DE@euro
    LD_LIBRARY_PATH (unset)
    LOGDIR (unset)
    PATH=/suse/mls/bin:/opt/kde3/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/bin:/usr/lib/java/bin:/usr/games/bin:/usr/games:/opt/gnome/bin:/opt/kde/bin:/usr/openwin/bin:/opt/pilotsdk/bin:/suse/mls/korn
    PERL_BADLANG (unset)
    SHELL=/bin/tcsh

From jns@gellyfish.com

On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 06​:49 -0700, mls@​suse.de (via RT) wrote​:

The perl-5.8.8 distribution contains vms/vms.c, which in turn contains
a section that is licensed under the following terms​:

Copyright (C) 1989-1994 by
Mark Pizzolato - INFO COMM, Danville, California (510) 837-5600

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this software,
on condition that this copyright notice is included in the reproduction,
and that such reproduction is not for purposes of profit or material
gain.

27-Aug-1994 Modified for inclusion in perl5
by Charles Bailey bailey@​newman.upenn.edu

This is not compatible to the GPL or the Artistic License. Please try
to get the permission from Mark Pizzolato to distribute this code
under the perl license.

A cursory search would seem to indicate that there are multiple
different versions of the original file under apparently different
terms​:

  http​://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=file%3Aargproc%5C.c

Specifically the version distributed with ctags is already GPL'd.

Would it do to replace the version we have with one of the GPL'd ones
and then reapply the original changes?

/J\

The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

From mls@suse.de

On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 08​:27​:18PM +0100, Jonathan Stowe wrote​:

A cursory search would seem to indicate that there are multiple
different versions of the original file under apparently different
terms​:

http​://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=file%3Aargproc%5C.c

Specifically the version distributed with ctags is already GPL'd.

Would it do to replace the version we have with one of the GPL'd ones
and then reapply the original changes?

Sure that would solve the problem for us, because we don't build a
vms binary and GPL allows free redistribution of the source.
But note that the Artistic license is not compatible to the GPL...

Cheers,
  Michael.

--
Michael Schroeder mls@​suse.de
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg
main(_){while(_=getchar())putchar(_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}

From @craigberry

On 5/23/07, Jonathan Stowe <jns@​gellyfish.com> wrote​:

On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 06​:49 -0700, mls@​suse.de (via RT) wrote​:

The perl-5.8.8 distribution contains vms/vms.c, which in turn contains
a section that is licensed under the following terms​:

Copyright (C) 1989-1994 by
Mark Pizzolato - INFO COMM, Danville, California (510) 837-5600

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this software,
on condition that this copyright notice is included in the reproduction,
and that such reproduction is not for purposes of profit or material
gain.

27-Aug-1994 Modified for inclusion in perl5
by Charles Bailey bailey@​newman.upenn.edu

This is not compatible to the GPL or the Artistic License.

Forgive my ignorance, but how is it incompatible, or what exactly are
you trying to do that it prevents you from doing? To me it sounds
highly similar to the Artistic license.

Please try
to get the permission from Mark Pizzolato to distribute this code
under the perl license.

That's one option. I'm cc'ing Mark in the vague hope that the
address in the copyright notice is still valid after 12 years and that
he's agreeable and this can be settled easily. The Perl Artistic
License is here​:

http​://perldoc.perl.org/perlartistic.html

but the GPL can optionally be invoked instead​:

http​://perldoc.perl.org/perlgpl.html

A cursory search would seem to indicate that there are multiple
different versions of the original file under apparently different
terms​:

http​://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=file%3Aargproc%5C.c

Specifically the version distributed with ctags is already GPL'd.

Would it do to replace the version we have with one of the GPL'd ones
and then reapply the original changes?

The version in ctags comes from argproc v1.0. The version in Perl
derives from argproc v2.2. Presumably the addition of the copyright
is one of the changes after 1.0.

From blblack@gmail.com

On 5/24/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/23/07, Jonathan Stowe <jns@​gellyfish.com> wrote​:

On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 06​:49 -0700, mls@​suse.de (via RT) wrote​:

The perl-5.8.8 distribution contains vms/vms.c, which in turn contains
a section that is licensed under the following terms​:

Copyright (C) 1989-1994 by
Mark Pizzolato - INFO COMM, Danville, California (510) 837-5600

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this software,
on condition that this copyright notice is included in the reproduction,
and that such reproduction is not for purposes of profit or material
gain.

27-Aug-1994 Modified for inclusion in perl5
by Charles Bailey bailey@​newman.upenn.edu

This is not compatible to the GPL or the Artistic License.

Forgive my ignorance, but how is it incompatible, or what exactly are
you trying to do that it prevents you from doing? To me it sounds
highly similar to the Artistic license.

The difference is that it's ambiguous on the subject of source vs
binary, and it explicitly prevents people from making any money (or
"material gain") from the reproduction, which is again somewhat
ambiguous. The strictest interpretation would be that it can only be
redistributed in source form, and you can't charge any money for
access to the source. The loosest interpretation would be that you
can make binaries, but they need to include his copyright message (in
docs or at startup, or ???), and again you can't charge any money for
access to the binaries (or package them with a product sold for money,
I would assume that infers).

A separate issue the license doesn't resolve is modifying the source.
As it stands, it only covers copying the original source. Has this
code ever been modified in the Perl sources since it was added to
Perl?

In any case, it's certainly more restrictive and more ambiguous than
either the GPL or Artistic licenses, and it potentially affects anyone
distributing source copies of Perl, and even more likely potentially
affects anyone distributing VMS binaries of Perl.

Please try
to get the permission from Mark Pizzolato to distribute this code
under the perl license.

That's one option. I'm cc'ing Mark in the vague hope that the
address in the copyright notice is still valid after 12 years and that
he's agreeable and this can be settled easily. The Perl Artistic
License is here​:

http​://perldoc.perl.org/perlartistic.html

but the GPL can optionally be invoked instead​:

http​://perldoc.perl.org/perlgpl.html

I've added another email address to the CC list that I'm inferring
from a bit of Googling might be valid for Mark these days.

A cursory search would seem to indicate that there are multiple
different versions of the original file under apparently different
terms​:

http​://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=file%3Aargproc%5C.c

Specifically the version distributed with ctags is already GPL'd.

Would it do to replace the version we have with one of the GPL'd ones
and then reapply the original changes?

The version in ctags comes from argproc v1.0. The version in Perl
derives from argproc v2.2. Presumably the addition of the copyright
is one of the changes after 1.0.

Even if we could get a GPL-licensed copy, that's not the same as a
Perl (dual GPL/Artistic-licensed) copy, although I suspect the
practical difference would be negligible unless one were trying to
bundle a binary build of VMS Perl with a commercial product.

-- Brandon

From @craigberry

On 5/24/07, Brandon Black <blblack@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/24/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/23/07, Jonathan Stowe <jns@​gellyfish.com> wrote​:

On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 06​:49 -0700, mls@​suse.de (via RT) wrote​:

The perl-5.8.8 distribution contains vms/vms.c, which in turn contains
a section that is licensed under the following terms​:

Copyright (C) 1989-1994 by
Mark Pizzolato - INFO COMM, Danville, California (510) 837-5600

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this software,
on condition that this copyright notice is included in the reproduction,
and that such reproduction is not for purposes of profit or material
gain.

27-Aug-1994 Modified for inclusion in perl5
by Charles Bailey bailey@​newman.upenn.edu

This is not compatible to the GPL or the Artistic License.

Forgive my ignorance, but how is it incompatible, or what exactly are
you trying to do that it prevents you from doing? To me it sounds
highly similar to the Artistic license.

The difference is that it's ambiguous on the subject of source vs
binary, and it explicitly prevents people from making any money (or
"material gain") from the reproduction, which is again somewhat
ambiguous. The strictest interpretation would be that it can only be
redistributed in source form, and you can't charge any money for
access to the source. The loosest interpretation would be that you
can make binaries, but they need to include his copyright message (in
docs or at startup, or ???), and again you can't charge any money for
access to the binaries (or package them with a product sold for money,
I would assume that infers).

A separate issue the license doesn't resolve is modifying the source.
As it stands, it only covers copying the original source. Has this
code ever been modified in the Perl sources since it was added to
Perl?

In any case, it's certainly more restrictive and more ambiguous than
either the GPL or Artistic licenses, and it potentially affects anyone
distributing source copies of Perl, and even more likely potentially
affects anyone distributing VMS binaries of Perl.

Well, that's a bizarre, fanciful, and paranoid interpretation that
tortures the actual statement into making all sorts of claims about
topics that it never mentions. But perhaps that's exactly what an IP
lawyer trying to make trouble would do these days.

As the comment by Charles Bailey makes clear, the code was brought
into Perl right before the 5.000 release almost thirteen years ago,
and as far as I know there has never until now been a whisper of doubt
about whether the copyright notice is compatible with the Perl
license(s).

And why wouldn't it be considered compatible? All it really specifies
is that the software is free and that credit be given where credit is
due, both of which are at the core of the Artistic and GPL licenses.
That sounds like compatible to me. It is true it is not as explicit
about a number of things as the Perl licenses, but I don't see the
basis for assuming it intends the opposite of what they do just
because it doesn't specify something.

From @demerphq

On 5/24/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/24/07, Brandon Black <blblack@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/24/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/23/07, Jonathan Stowe <jns@​gellyfish.com> wrote​:

On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 06​:49 -0700, mls@​suse.de (via RT) wrote​:

The perl-5.8.8 distribution contains vms/vms.c, which in turn contains
a section that is licensed under the following terms​:

Copyright (C) 1989-1994 by
Mark Pizzolato - INFO COMM, Danville, California (510) 837-5600

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this software,
on condition that this copyright notice is included in the reproduction,
and that such reproduction is not for purposes of profit or material
gain.

27-Aug-1994 Modified for inclusion in perl5
by Charles Bailey bailey@​newman.upenn.edu

This is not compatible to the GPL or the Artistic License.

Forgive my ignorance, but how is it incompatible, or what exactly are
you trying to do that it prevents you from doing? To me it sounds
highly similar to the Artistic license.

The difference is that it's ambiguous on the subject of source vs
binary, and it explicitly prevents people from making any money (or
"material gain") from the reproduction, which is again somewhat
ambiguous. The strictest interpretation would be that it can only be
redistributed in source form, and you can't charge any money for
access to the source. The loosest interpretation would be that you
can make binaries, but they need to include his copyright message (in
docs or at startup, or ???), and again you can't charge any money for
access to the binaries (or package them with a product sold for money,
I would assume that infers).

A separate issue the license doesn't resolve is modifying the source.
As it stands, it only covers copying the original source. Has this
code ever been modified in the Perl sources since it was added to
Perl?

In any case, it's certainly more restrictive and more ambiguous than
either the GPL or Artistic licenses, and it potentially affects anyone
distributing source copies of Perl, and even more likely potentially
affects anyone distributing VMS binaries of Perl.

Well, that's a bizarre, fanciful, and paranoid interpretation that
tortures the actual statement into making all sorts of claims about
topics that it never mentions. But perhaps that's exactly what an IP
lawyer trying to make trouble would do these days.

As the comment by Charles Bailey makes clear, the code was brought
into Perl right before the 5.000 release almost thirteen years ago,
and as far as I know there has never until now been a whisper of doubt
about whether the copyright notice is compatible with the Perl
license(s).

And why wouldn't it be considered compatible? All it really specifies
is that the software is free and that credit be given where credit is
due, both of which are at the core of the Artistic and GPL licenses.
That sounds like compatible to me. It is true it is not as explicit
about a number of things as the Perl licenses, but I don't see the
basis for assuming it intends the opposite of what they do just
because it doesn't specify something.

IMO Its directly incompatble with 3.c, 4.c an 8 of the Artistic. (unfortunately)

yves

--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"

From blblack@gmail.com

On 5/24/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

Well, that's a bizarre, fanciful, and paranoid interpretation that
tortures the actual statement into making all sorts of claims about
topics that it never mentions. But perhaps that's exactly what an IP
lawyer trying to make trouble would do these days.

Exactly.

As the comment by Charles Bailey makes clear, the code was brought
into Perl right before the 5.000 release almost thirteen years ago,
and as far as I know there has never until now been a whisper of doubt
about whether the copyright notice is compatible with the Perl
license(s).

I'm assuming nobody noticed or gave it much thought, I don't know.

And why wouldn't it be considered compatible? All it really specifies
is that the software is free and that credit be given where credit is
due, both of which are at the core of the Artistic and GPL licenses.
That sounds like compatible to me. It is true it is not as explicit
about a number of things as the Perl licenses, but I don't see the
basis for assuming it intends the opposite of what they do just
because it doesn't specify something.

The issue here is that the original copyright holder has all rights by
default, and everyone else has none. The purpose of a license is to
explicitly grant certain rights to other people. If you use it in a
way that isn't explicitly granted, you're potentially in legal
trouble. IANAL, but it doesn't make me feel comfortable having an
oddball license with ambiguous language buried somewhere deep inside
Perl's source.

-- Brandon

From @craigberry

On 5/25/07, Mark Pizzolato <mark@​infocomm.com> wrote​:

--- demerphq <demerphq@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/24/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/24/07, Brandon Black <blblack@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/24/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/23/07, Jonathan Stowe <jns@​gellyfish.com> wrote​:

On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 06​:49 -0700, mls@​suse.de (via RT)
wrote​:

The perl-5.8.8 distribution contains vms/vms.c, which in
turn contains
a section that is licensed under the following terms​:

Copyright (C) 1989-1994 by
Mark Pizzolato - INFO COMM, Danville, California (510)
837-5600

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of
this software,
on condition that this copyright notice is included in
the reproduction,
and that such reproduction is not for purposes of profit
or material
gain.

27-Aug-1994 Modified for inclusion in perl5
by Charles Bailey bailey@​newman.upenn.edu

This is not compatible to the GPL or the Artistic License.

Forgive my ignorance, but how is it incompatible, or what
exactly are
you trying to do that it prevents you from doing? To me it
sounds
highly similar to the Artistic license.

The difference is that it's ambiguous on the subject of source vs
binary, and it explicitly prevents people from making any money
(or
"material gain") from the reproduction, which is again somewhat
ambiguous. The strictest interpretation would be that it can
only be
redistributed in source form, and you can't charge any money for
access to the source. The loosest interpretation would be that
you
can make binaries, but they need to include his copyright message
(in
docs or at startup, or ???), and again you can't charge any money
for
access to the binaries (or package them with a product sold for
money,
I would assume that infers).

A separate issue the license doesn't resolve is modifying the
source.
As it stands, it only covers copying the original source. Has
this
code ever been modified in the Perl sources since it was added to
Perl?

In any case, it's certainly more restrictive and more ambiguous
than
either the GPL or Artistic licenses, and it potentially affects
anyone
distributing source copies of Perl, and even more likely
potentially
affects anyone distributing VMS binaries of Perl.

Well, that's a bizarre, fanciful, and paranoid interpretation that
tortures the actual statement into making all sorts of claims about
topics that it never mentions. But perhaps that's exactly what an
IP
lawyer trying to make trouble would do these days.

As the comment by Charles Bailey makes clear, the code was brought
into Perl right before the 5.000 release almost thirteen years ago,
and as far as I know there has never until now been a whisper of
doubt
about whether the copyright notice is compatible with the Perl
license(s).

And why wouldn't it be considered compatible? All it really
specifies
is that the software is free and that credit be given where credit
is
due, both of which are at the core of the Artistic and GPL
licenses.
That sounds like compatible to me. It is true it is not as
explicit
about a number of things as the Perl licenses, but I don't see the
basis for assuming it intends the opposite of what they do just
because it doesn't specify something.

IMO Its directly incompatble with 3.c, 4.c an 8 of the Artistic.
(unfortunately)

Hi there,

Sorry I didn't notice this thread for a few days. I read email for
this address on an account which receives 100's of spam messages a day
and therefore doesn't have a high signal to noise ratio. These
messages did pass through the spam filters though.

In any case, I'm happy to fix the original vms argproc.c license
language, by removing​:

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this
software, on condition that this copyright notice is included
in the reproduction, and that such reproduction is not for
purposes of profit or material gain.

and replacing it with​:

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this
software, on condition that this copyright notice is included
in the reproduction. The code, may be modified and distributed
under the same terms as Perl itself.

Please continue to leave the mark@​infocomm.com email address in the
code.

Thanks for the reply, Mark, and you can now ignore the private message
I sent to your gmail account. I think your statement settles all but
one of the issues people have raised. Could we substitute "is
included in source distributions of the software" in place of "is
included in the reproduction"? Otherwise some lawyer who doesn't know
squat about what compilers do with code comments could give someone a
hard time for not having your copyright notice in a binary
distribution of Perl.

From @craigberry

On 5/25/07, Mark Pizzolato <mark@​infocomm.com> wrote​:

--- Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/25/07, Mark Pizzolato <mark@​infocomm.com> wrote​:

In any case, I'm happy to fix the original vms argproc.c license
language, by removing​:

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this
software, on condition that this copyright notice is included
in the reproduction, and that such reproduction is not for
purposes of profit or material gain.

and replacing it with​:

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this
software, on condition that this copyright notice is included
in the reproduction. The code, may be modified and distributed
under the same terms as Perl itself.

Please continue to leave the mark@​infocomm.com email address in the
code.

Thanks for the reply, Mark, and you can now ignore the private
message
I sent to your gmail account. I think your statement settles all but
one of the issues people have raised. Could we substitute "is
included in source distributions of the software" in place of "is
included in the reproduction"? Otherwise some lawyer who doesn't
know
squat about what compilers do with code comments could give someone a
hard time for not having your copyright notice in a binary
distribution of Perl.

Yes. Go ahead and modify "is included in the reproduction" to "is
included in source distributions of the software".

Great, thanks for the speedy reply. I've now committed the following change​:

http​://public.activestate.com/cgi-bin/perlbrowse/p/31279

If those who found a problem with the original language could please
confirm that this new version satisfies their concerns I'd appreciate
it.

Thanks for engaging me.

Thank *you* for contributing your fine code; it's no less needed and
appreciated today for having been done a long time ago.

From @demerphq

On 5/26/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/25/07, Mark Pizzolato <mark@​infocomm.com> wrote​:

--- Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/25/07, Mark Pizzolato <mark@​infocomm.com> wrote​:

In any case, I'm happy to fix the original vms argproc.c license
language, by removing​:

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this
software, on condition that this copyright notice is included
in the reproduction, and that such reproduction is not for
purposes of profit or material gain.

and replacing it with​:

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this
software, on condition that this copyright notice is included
in the reproduction. The code, may be modified and distributed
under the same terms as Perl itself.

Please continue to leave the mark@​infocomm.com email address in the
code.

Thanks for the reply, Mark, and you can now ignore the private
message
I sent to your gmail account. I think your statement settles all but
one of the issues people have raised. Could we substitute "is
included in source distributions of the software" in place of "is
included in the reproduction"? Otherwise some lawyer who doesn't
know
squat about what compilers do with code comments could give someone a
hard time for not having your copyright notice in a binary
distribution of Perl.

Yes. Go ahead and modify "is included in the reproduction" to "is
included in source distributions of the software".

Great, thanks for the speedy reply. I've now committed the following change​:

http​://public.activestate.com/cgi-bin/perlbrowse/p/31279

If those who found a problem with the original language could please
confirm that this new version satisfies their concerns I'd appreciate
it.

Seems to resolve the issues i listed.

And cheers Mark its very kind of you to change things with such little fuss.

yves

yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"

From mark@infocomm.com

--- demerphq <demerphq@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/24/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/24/07, Brandon Black <blblack@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/24/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/23/07, Jonathan Stowe <jns@​gellyfish.com> wrote​:

On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 06​:49 -0700, mls@​suse.de (via RT)
wrote​:

The perl-5.8.8 distribution contains vms/vms.c, which in
turn contains
a section that is licensed under the following terms​:

Copyright (C) 1989-1994 by
Mark Pizzolato - INFO COMM, Danville, California (510)
837-5600

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of
this software,
on condition that this copyright notice is included in
the reproduction,
and that such reproduction is not for purposes of profit
or material
gain.

27-Aug-1994 Modified for inclusion in perl5
by Charles Bailey bailey@​newman.upenn.edu

This is not compatible to the GPL or the Artistic License.

Forgive my ignorance, but how is it incompatible, or what
exactly are
you trying to do that it prevents you from doing? To me it
sounds
highly similar to the Artistic license.

The difference is that it's ambiguous on the subject of source vs
binary, and it explicitly prevents people from making any money
(or
"material gain") from the reproduction, which is again somewhat
ambiguous. The strictest interpretation would be that it can
only be
redistributed in source form, and you can't charge any money for
access to the source. The loosest interpretation would be that
you
can make binaries, but they need to include his copyright message
(in
docs or at startup, or ???), and again you can't charge any money
for
access to the binaries (or package them with a product sold for
money,
I would assume that infers).

A separate issue the license doesn't resolve is modifying the
source.
As it stands, it only covers copying the original source. Has
this
code ever been modified in the Perl sources since it was added to
Perl?

In any case, it's certainly more restrictive and more ambiguous
than
either the GPL or Artistic licenses, and it potentially affects
anyone
distributing source copies of Perl, and even more likely
potentially
affects anyone distributing VMS binaries of Perl.

Well, that's a bizarre, fanciful, and paranoid interpretation that
tortures the actual statement into making all sorts of claims about
topics that it never mentions. But perhaps that's exactly what an
IP
lawyer trying to make trouble would do these days.

As the comment by Charles Bailey makes clear, the code was brought
into Perl right before the 5.000 release almost thirteen years ago,
and as far as I know there has never until now been a whisper of
doubt
about whether the copyright notice is compatible with the Perl
license(s).

And why wouldn't it be considered compatible? All it really
specifies
is that the software is free and that credit be given where credit
is
due, both of which are at the core of the Artistic and GPL
licenses.
That sounds like compatible to me. It is true it is not as
explicit
about a number of things as the Perl licenses, but I don't see the
basis for assuming it intends the opposite of what they do just
because it doesn't specify something.

IMO Its directly incompatble with 3.c, 4.c an 8 of the Artistic.
(unfortunately)

Hi there,

Sorry I didn't notice this thread for a few days. I read email for
this address on an account which receives 100's of spam messages a day
and therefore doesn't have a high signal to noise ratio. These
messages did pass through the spam filters though.

In any case, I'm happy to fix the original vms argproc.c license
language, by removing​:

  Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this
  software, on condition that this copyright notice is included
  in the reproduction, and that such reproduction is not for
  purposes of profit or material gain.

and replacing it with​:

  Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this
  software, on condition that this copyright notice is included
  in the reproduction. The code, may be modified and distributed
  under the same terms as Perl itself.

Please continue to leave the mark@​infocomm.com email address in the
code.

- Mark Pizzolato

From mark@infocomm.com

--- Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/25/07, Mark Pizzolato <mark@​infocomm.com> wrote​:

--- demerphq <demerphq@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/24/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/24/07, Brandon Black <blblack@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/24/07, Craig Berry <craig.a.berry@​gmail.com> wrote​:

On 5/23/07, Jonathan Stowe <jns@​gellyfish.com> wrote​:

On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 06​:49 -0700, mls@​suse.de (via RT)
wrote​:

The perl-5.8.8 distribution contains vms/vms.c, which
in
turn contains
a section that is licensed under the following terms​:

Copyright (C) 1989-1994 by
Mark Pizzolato - INFO COMM, Danville, California
(510)
837-5600

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of
this software,
on condition that this copyright notice is included
in
the reproduction,
and that such reproduction is not for purposes of
profit
or material
gain.

27-Aug-1994 Modified for inclusion in perl5
by Charles Bailey
bailey@​newman.upenn.edu

This is not compatible to the GPL or the Artistic
License.

Forgive my ignorance, but how is it incompatible, or what
exactly are
you trying to do that it prevents you from doing? To me it
sounds
highly similar to the Artistic license.

The difference is that it's ambiguous on the subject of
source vs
binary, and it explicitly prevents people from making any
money
(or
"material gain") from the reproduction, which is again
somewhat
ambiguous. The strictest interpretation would be that it can
only be
redistributed in source form, and you can't charge any money
for
access to the source. The loosest interpretation would be
that
you
can make binaries, but they need to include his copyright
message
(in
docs or at startup, or ???), and again you can't charge any
money
for
access to the binaries (or package them with a product sold
for
money,
I would assume that infers).

A separate issue the license doesn't resolve is modifying the
source.
As it stands, it only covers copying the original source.
Has
this
code ever been modified in the Perl sources since it was
added to
Perl?

In any case, it's certainly more restrictive and more
ambiguous
than
either the GPL or Artistic licenses, and it potentially
affects
anyone
distributing source copies of Perl, and even more likely
potentially
affects anyone distributing VMS binaries of Perl.

Well, that's a bizarre, fanciful, and paranoid interpretation
that
tortures the actual statement into making all sorts of claims
about
topics that it never mentions. But perhaps that's exactly what
an
IP
lawyer trying to make trouble would do these days.

As the comment by Charles Bailey makes clear, the code was
brought
into Perl right before the 5.000 release almost thirteen years
ago,
and as far as I know there has never until now been a whisper
of
doubt
about whether the copyright notice is compatible with the Perl
license(s).

And why wouldn't it be considered compatible? All it really
specifies
is that the software is free and that credit be given where
credit
is
due, both of which are at the core of the Artistic and GPL
licenses.
That sounds like compatible to me. It is true it is not as
explicit
about a number of things as the Perl licenses, but I don't see
the
basis for assuming it intends the opposite of what they do just
because it doesn't specify something.

IMO Its directly incompatble with 3.c, 4.c an 8 of the Artistic.
(unfortunately)

Hi there,

Sorry I didn't notice this thread for a few days. I read email for
this address on an account which receives 100's of spam messages a
day
and therefore doesn't have a high signal to noise ratio. These
messages did pass through the spam filters though.

In any case, I'm happy to fix the original vms argproc.c license
language, by removing​:

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this
software, on condition that this copyright notice is included
in the reproduction, and that such reproduction is not for
purposes of profit or material gain.

and replacing it with​:

Permission is hereby granted for the reproduction of this
software, on condition that this copyright notice is included
in the reproduction. The code, may be modified and distributed
under the same terms as Perl itself.

Please continue to leave the mark@​infocomm.com email address in the
code.

Thanks for the reply, Mark, and you can now ignore the private
message
I sent to your gmail account. I think your statement settles all but
one of the issues people have raised. Could we substitute "is
included in source distributions of the software" in place of "is
included in the reproduction"? Otherwise some lawyer who doesn't
know
squat about what compilers do with code comments could give someone a
hard time for not having your copyright notice in a binary
distribution of Perl.

Yes. Go ahead and modify "is included in the reproduction" to "is
included in source distributions of the software".

Thanks for engaging me.

- Mark Pizzolato

From mls@suse.de

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 05​:33​:01PM -0500, Craig Berry wrote​:

If those who found a problem with the original language could please
confirm that this new version satisfies their concerns I'd appreciate
it.

The new language resolves all of our concerns.

Thanks for looking into this,
  Michael.

--
Michael Schroeder mls@​suse.de
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg
main(_){while(_=getchar())putchar(_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}

p5p@spam.wizbit.be - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'