On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 03:17:56PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Please note that we're seriously considering moving to either a BSD
??
curious - this is the first I've been aware of this idea, so I wonder who
the "we" is. Or what the cause for the formal change is?
["formal" because my reading of the artistic licence is that you can do
pretty much anything with perl5 code providing you don't call it perl, and
you credit the author. Hence saying the licence is BSD rather than "GPL +
artistic" makes no pragmatic difference, as best I can tell. Except that
other people (and other people's legal departments) may have a better idea of
where they stand with a BSD licence]
> One thing we will definitely be doing is officially restricting the
> scope of the license leakage. Parrot's license will explicitly not
> cover generated bytecode, nor will it cover the internal
> representation of anyone's source, much in the way that gcc's license
> doesn't apply to the object files it generates (and unlike the way
> gcc's license does apply to its internal representations of things)
What's the significance in the internal representation? (I can't see why it
matters, but presumably it does matter to someone for some reason important
to them, otherwise it would never have become significant enough to need this
explicit clarification.)
Nicholas Clark
--
INTERCAL better than perl? http://www.perl.org/advocacy/spoofathon/
