Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:43:36AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
> > No. It was to have Windows support built-in to the standard
> distribution.
>
> I see.
>
> I notice that you still haven't told me which part of clause three they
> actually kept.
>
> --
You look great on your new book, by the way. (I especially like the red
around you.)
---
Guys, I have no intention of ranting about any specific company, and I am
not at all limiting this to one company. The point that I have intended to
make is that it is _possible_ for a company to do these things unfettered.
Whether it has actually happened I'm leaving to other people to decide for
themselves, as well as who has done it. That I am now seeing some
objectivity among us is quite refreshing. However, I'd prefer to leave
ActiveState out of the discussion. I have legal boundaries there that I
voluntarily won't cross at this time.
And, Ben, please don't assume that I've said anything to you in private
that isn't visible in public, or hasn't been for a long time.
Okay, let's play what if. Since the idea is proposed that the current
license mechanism is perfect as-is, "though with minor grammar corrections
in the AL", I think it's important to work with that as a premise and see
if it actually has merit.
1. What if a company, ANY company, whether through collusion or by any
other means, historically has had, currently has, or in the future will
have, the ability to disregard the perl license mechanism as it stands
because of questionable "grammar", or the spirit of the licenses because
of unstated "spirit"? (Forget for a moment that it's now been discussed as
historical fact, and keep it in the abstract.)
2. What if a company, ANY company, hires key members of whatever governing
Perl body exists, for the specific purpose of affecting public opinion
about that company and controlling the development of the Perl language;
and that company can affect public opinion concerning itself and its
actions due to control of "public" media; and that company can affect
elite (not elitist) opinions due to misguided devotion to those key
members?
3. What if a company, ANY company, through a combination of the above
decided that it wanted to control the Perl "marketplace"?
4. What if a company, ANY company, due to its control (through whatever
means) of key members of the Perl community, can affect by that control
and by some feeling of devotion to those key people, could control major
aspects of this language, including release dates? _I_DON'T_CARE_ whether
that "happened", but given the rest, it is possible.
5. What if the other key members of our community just didn't care about
platform x ("What if it were Solaris?") or just plain refused to look
objectively at the situation because those "purchased" key people said
that everything is "okie dokie"? And if Bill Gates jumped off a bridge...
that sort of thing.
Actually, there are several more, but I think these are enough. The point
is, whether or not you actually _believe_ that this has happened, or that
it is possible, I assert that the licensing (and policies) that currently
exists, and the failure to enforce those licenses (and policies), are not
suitable to defend against this influence. They are designed to grant
freedoms (GNU) and some minor restrictions (AL). They aren't designed to
handle hostile takeovers and collusion. If this potential is acceptable,
then I would agree that the current licensing and policies of the Perl
language and community are sufficient. If they are sufficient, then why
does this discussion forum exist?
When "the love bug" hit, did any one of you accept Microsoft's explanation
that it was due to "the growth of the internet"? It seemed to satisfy
Microsoft die-hards and the average masses, of course, but I think we know
that the problem was the gaping security hole that should never have
existed in the first place. (How they escaped worldwide lawsuits is beyond
me.) To me, the current situation in Perl is very similar to that.
Objectivity is everything, unless we _want_ to believe everything we're
told as though our key players were truly infallable.
Yes, Larry has no interest in hampering any company's ability to use and
work with the Perl language, redistribute it, grow it, or profit from it.
I also have no interest in seeing this happen. However, we are well past
that part of the discussion. I'm not discussing granting freedoms, which
must continue to exist, but a manifest of acceptable behavior (AL2?). If
Perl is to continue to grow, and grow as a cultural phenomenon rather than
just an marvel of modern programming, we need to come together as the
one-culture of one-perl and demand proper behavior from its maintainers
and distributors, through licensing as the first step, and then through
litigation, through objectivity, through responsibility, through
accountability, through unanymity.
p
