Ajit Deshpande wrote:
>For everyone's sanity, I think if Chris and Ben would answer the
>following questions, I think we can have more streamlined discussion:
>
>1. What is the objective of the AL?
To explicitly allow any use of the code-base for Perl that
is not apparently intended to detract from Larry Wall's
ability to continue to control the public perception of
what Perl is.
>2. Should we (perl-developer-community) involve lawyers in the
>discussion about whether the present wording of AL meets the objectives
>stated in #1 above?
Yes.
>3. If answer to #2 is yes, then when should we do that? How many
>lawyer-opinions would be enough? How do we decide which lawyer to use?
>How do we do conflict resolution if two lawyers have differing opinions?
As early as possible. Like a programming spec the lawyers
need to work with us through the process. Certainly no
license not generally approved of (well in the end that will
mean approved of by Larry) should be accepted so there is no
risk that I can see in getting lawyers involved early. (If
it is pro-bono that is.)
In the event of disagreement we will have to discuss what
they disagree over and why.
>4. If answer to #2 is no, do you think that sometime in the foreseeable
>future there could arise a situation where you will be displeased with
>the way a Corporate entity or an Individual has
>used/modified/distributed/renamed Perl and you wish to
>challenge that and want arbitration by a mutually (between yourself and
>the offending corporation or individual) agreed upon body?
n/a
>5. If the answer to #4 is no, then do you think that your goals could
>be met with the BSD-style licenses and you do not have any practical need
>of the AL?
n/a
>6. (This maybe a redundant question wrt AL) Distinguish between the spirits
>of the BSD-style v/s AL licenses in your opinion.
The BSD license has no goal beyond recognizing that you made
some sort of contribution, and protecting you from lawsuits.
The AL wants to protect you from lawsuits, does not care
about explicit recognition, and (IMO of course) should
protect your ability to maintain a version that (barring
general community disagreement) is accepted as standard.
I do not think explicit protection against forks is
particularly desirable since I believe that the ability to
fork tends to surpress the need for a fork. I do think
explicit protection against BS licensing games is useful
because there are concrete examples of companies who have
tried to use such games in the past to subvert or keep
control.
Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
