Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 11:40 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >1. Larry is in charge of Perl.
> >
> >2. Perl should be available under terms agreeable with the
> > above statement.
> >
> >Two additional points come to mind as my opinions:
> >
> >3. The current AL probably does not convey the above in terms
> > acceptable to lawyers and it is worth making it do so.
> >
> >4. Perl folks are not exactly fond of litigation and lawyerly
> > details.
> >
> >Can we all agree on these points?
>
>No. I disagree with #3.
May I ask what part you disagree with?
That it is probably not acceptable with lawyers? That is a
statement of fact and we have evidence for it.
That it is worth making it do so? It depends how much it
obfuscates the license. In my eyes there is a win in having
the artistic license actually express the opinion that Tom
stated, that artistic control remains with the author but you
can do anything which does not infringe. People want to be
able to say that easily. As long as the cost of coming up
with a legally tight way of doing that is not great, why
would you object to it being done?
Allow me to rephrase.
If you saw a license that lawyers liked which was both readable
and not significantly different in spirit from the current one
(my definition of that spirit is taken from Tom's rant about
artistic control and honesty), do you see a net win to adopting
it?
Thanks,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
