Hi, The other aspect of this is what will actually be created. I'd rather see a reference model created, and leave it to others to improve the speed and such. I think sun have done something similar with J2EE.
It means that the people here can focus on getting the feature set right, and leave it to others to do optimisations and such, but will no doubt have an effect on the legal aspects of the project. Does any one have experience in this sort of field? Steve. Dave Rolsky wrote: > On 21 Nov 2001, Ilya Martynov wrote: > > > >>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:41:07 -0500, Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > Uri> thanx for the vote. see my other post for the news that i am in the > > Uri> process of GPL'ing it. > > > > Talking about licenses: is it really good idea to use GPL in P5EE? > > Why not Artistic (like Perl itself) or at least LGPL? GPL is hardly > > acceptable if P5EE is supposed to be used in commercial projects. > > > > If I understand licensing correctly if any core P5EE library is GPL it > > forces GPL for any application built upon P5EE. > > That would be correct. > > This actually brings up a larger can of worms. Should there be an > "official" license for P5EE. If so, the obvious candidate would "the same > as Perl itself" since that is the de facto Perl standard. > > I do think that P5EE _will_ need an official license because if we want to > really promote the use of pluggable components we have to make sure that > they all have the same license. > > -dave > > /*================== > www.urth.org > We await the New Sun > ==================*/ > > _____________________________________________________________________ > This message has been checked for all known viruses by the > MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service.
