Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
>
> > 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.)
>
>Right, but I'm not asking it in perpetuity. Or for that long, even. Just
>until we have a working license. If it's only a few people, or just me (or
>nobody, depending on when things work out) that's fine. I just want
>something that won't cause a problem when the final AL is done.
I think if the final license causes enough controversy to
require this kind of measure, the problem is in the license.
As long as you have an easily defined list of contributers
and it is a one-time thing, I think that this kind of measure
is not worth taking. A lot of people simply are unable to
participate with copyright assignment because that requires
them to go to company lawyers who are unlikely to understand
what this is all about.
> > 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.
>
>I'll take your word for it. Which means we need to engineer the new AL so
>folks can do this without onerous restriction.
Read sections 3a) and 3c).
> > 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...
>
>I'd assumed it would be the way it is now, with the choose your own
>license policy. I'd hope that would continue.
Either that or a very liberal license. But both licenses that
exist now, plus early comments by Tom C, plus my attempted draft
all discourage the creation of a proprietary Perl based on the
existing code-base.
Is that in conflict with the overall direction of the Perl 6
effort? To my eyes this is a pretty big decision.
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.
