Perl is Alive!

[Nigel Hamilton]

2008/12/10 Dave Cross <dave at dave.org.uk>

> >                                                       but what TPF does
> > with "perl.com" is for them to decide - they are the rightful owners.
>
> I really don't understand this argument at all. If anyone could lay a
> claim to perl.com, it's Larry himself (and I really don't see him doing
> that). But I don't understand why you think that TPF has a better claim
> to it than Tom. Perhaps you're assuming that TPF has a level of
> "officiality" (is that the right word?)


I'm not assuming anything. The Perl Foundation own the trade mark to Perl
and all the goodwill that goes with it. They are the "official" holder of
Perl's intellectual property - including the Perl brand - it's most valuable
asset[1].



> that it doesn't have and (as far as I know) doesn't aspire to.
>

It does own the brand and we should all be aspiring to protect it for the
good of the community[1].


> Both Tom and O'Reilly have been very good for Perl.


No doubt. I'm not debating that. But the fact is "perl.com" has been *very*
good for Tom. I'm talking about a significant amount of money that could
have gone on TPF grants.


Without them I don'
> think that we'd be here having this conversation.


We might also be talking about Perl6 being released *this* Christmas. I'm
not against the arrangement with O'Reilly - this can remain the same - it's
just the licence fee needs to paid to the rightful owner - that's fair.

Nige


[1]
The work of The Perl Foundation includes making sure that Perl code and
documentation are free and open for all to use, and remain free and open for
all to use. One of the many ways we do this is through the Perl trademark.