David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then there is no point in working with licenses at all. If licenses will
> not be enforced through litigation and our desires for the Perl language
> cannot be enforced through public censure,
I believe that the proposed (Artistic-2.0|GPL) license is indeed enforceable
through litigation, or through cease and desist orders. I think there are
too many problems with the original Artistic to make it enforceable, and
that's one of the reasons I proposed the rewrite.
> we might as well have a license
> that simply says, "Do whatever you want with this, we don't care [...shot
> at ORA deleted...]
Sans the "in bed with ORA part", "Do whatever you want with this, we don't
care" is basically the X11-style license. I actually tried to find someone
to champion the idea and write an RFC to propose that Perl go under an
X11-style license, but no one picked up the ball.
(I personally prefer my (Artistic-2.0|GPL) proposal, and Larry already
teased me (friendly, of course ;) about writing RFCs that I didn't actually
agree with, so I didn't bother to champion X11-style for Perl myself.)
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
