At 20:04 -0500 01.16.2001, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >Related to this, though, I have a procedural question: > > Does anyone know if Larry is considering "leave it as it is" for all > options on RFCs? Chris noted that there wasn't a point in writing an RFC > that said: "perl's license stays the same", because it was implicit. I > wasn't clear that it was implicit. Have I misunderstood? Larry can do anything at all, regardless of the RFCs. He can choose to leave something as it is, accept an RFC, modify an RFC, or come up with something new on his own. I think this is the case with _everything_ related to this phase of things. Rule #1 still applies. At least, this is my understanding. -- Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/ Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
- Re: licensing issues Dave Rolsky
- Re: licensing issues David Grove
- Re: licensing issues Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: licensing issues Russ Allbery
- Re: licensing issues David Grove
- Re: licensing issues Chris Nandor
- intent of a non-legally binding... Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: licensing issues Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: licensing issues Russ Allbery
- feedback and the license of Per... Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: licensing issues Chris Nandor
- Re: licensing issues Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: licensing issues Ben Tilly
- Making sure "Perl" means "Perl" ... Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: licensing issues John van V
- Re: licensing issues Ben Tilly
- Re: licensing issues David Grove
- Re: licensing issues David Grove
- Re: licensing issues Chris Nandor
- The "Do what you want" license and enforce... Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: The "Do what you want" license and... David Grove