At 12:05 AM -0800 1/13/01, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Perl, by the *explicit* intention of Larry, sits at a very nice crossroads
>between three active communities; those who use the GPL and agree with the
>general goals of the FSF, those who prefer software to be as free as
>possible and usually use the BSD or X license, and those who write
>proprietary software. All three of those groups meet and work and help
>each other with Perl, which I think is a wonderful and important thing. I
>think it should be the first goal of this working group to preserve that
>balance regardless of the license chosen, so that all these people who are
>currently working together can continue to do so.
Absolutely. And this "status quo" argument is why I think that it is
reasonable to keep the current licensing scheme; it has served Perl very,
very well. If the AL can be changed to satsify some lawyers, while at the
same time not becoming less readable (becoming more readable would be
better) and certainly not imposing any more of a burden on the people who
use it, then I am not opposed to it.
While I do not appreciate much of what the GPL has to offer, we are still
_essentially_ working toward the same goal -- free software -- and as you
said, having the GPL on perl has helped perl and its community tremendously.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
