The Mishna (Zevachim 2:3) clearly defines piggul (פגול) as resulting from one of the four sacrificial procedures (slaughter, collection of the blood, walking to the altar and sprinkling) being performed with the intention of eating the sacrifice after its appointed time only. Something that is slaughtered (or has its blood collected, carried or sprinkled) on condition that it be eaten outside of its appointed place is also forbidden, but it is not called piggul and it does not result in karet.
This same attitude is expressly clearly in the Rambam (Hilkhot Pesulei haMuqdashin 13:1) - any sacrifice that is performed with the intention of its being eaten outside the appointed place is forbidden, but only that which is performed with the intention if its being eaten outside of its appointed time is called piggul.
I am not aware of anybody holding contrary to this, and yet consider what the Bartenura says on Kareitot 1:1! There, the mishna includes the consumption of piggul as one of the thirty-six things that results in karet, and the Bartenura defines piggul as follows:
קדשים שחשב לאכלן חוץ לזמנן או חוץ למקומן
Sacrifices, [during the performance of which] one intended to eat of them outside the appointed time, or outside the appointed place.
Is this a typo in the Bartenura?? I've checked two different versions already, and this is what he says in both of them. Not only that, but I've not found anybody else commenting upon the phenomenon. Assuming it is not a mistake, how can the Bartenura define piggul contrary to the Rambam, the gemara and the Mishna itself?