Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
[...] I'm seriously thinking of instituting an "All
>code
>submitted to the repository belongs to Larry" rule until we have this
>hashed out, so there's only one copyright holder to deal with.
We had that discussion. You would be asking for copyright
assignment, which would cause a lot of problems for a lot of
people. (As in they would need to clear that with their legal
departments and would be unable to contribute.)
What I would prefer is a "developer's agreement" which binds
people to a modification procedure. Which basically comes
down to public announcement, together with private emails to
everyone who cares, and then it is, "Speak now or forever hold
your peace." Then you don't have to deal with actually
transferring the copyright, but you also don't leave people's
hands tied.
[...]
On a related note, I think I see a fundamental issue. The
original Artistic License was specifically designed to
*discourage* having people create new implementations that
replaces specific parts. You are telling me that having this
happen is a goal. These two statements conflict.
Both the original AL and my version have as goals that if a
new version of Perl was created under the permissions in the AL,
then it would be free software. If you created anything else
with Perl, go ahead.
Is it a conflict with the aims of Perl 6 in general that various
derivatives of Perl should be licensed under the AL+GPL or GPL?
(ie Implementations of Perl either are done from scratch or are
free software.) Until you began talking about your desire to
see new implementations I had never really wondered at that...
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.
