Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David Grove wrote:
>
> > 1. What if a company, ANY company, whether through collusion or by
any
> > other means, historically has had, currently has, or in the future
will
> > have, the ability to disregard the perl license mechanism as it
stands
> > because of questionable "grammar", or the spirit of the licenses
because
> > of unstated "spirit"? (Forget for a moment that it's now been
discussed
> as
> > historical fact, and keep it in the abstract.)
>
> That does seem to be a good argument for tightening up the AL, which
has
> been discussed and submitted to Larry as an RFC, I believe.
>
> > 2. What if a company, ANY company, hires key members of whatever
> governing
> > Perl body exists, for the specific purpose of affecting public
opinion
> > about that company and controlling the development of the Perl
language;
> > and that company can affect public opinion concerning itself and its
> > actions due to control of "public" media; and that company can affect
> > elite (not elitist) opinions due to misguided devotion to those key
> > members?
>
> This seems to me to be a problem of the community, rather than a
license.
> If members of the community working on the core of Perl allow
themselves
> to be bought and sold, _AND_ nobody else in the community complains,
then
> we've gotten what we deserve. I would suggest that the proper way to
> handle this is for the community to be self-policing. If someone in a
> position of influence in the community is obviously acting in the best
> interests of their employer (without taking into account the
community's
> interests) then they should be asked to leave the community.
>
> I just don't see how this particular problem could be solved through
> licensing.
I'm suggesting licensing only as a necessary first step. It's a document
where we put on paper (or in bits and bytes) what the nature of our
"spirit" is. Without this as a groundwork, there's very little to base
further action and policy on.
All law in my country (the United States) is, in one way or another, based
upon a single document, our Constitution. However, that document is based
upon a previous document which is equally important, in that it expresses
the nature of our "spirit", our Declaration of Independence from England.
(Recent events have forced us to turn to other early writings, however, to
further discover the nature of this "spirit".) Many if not most countries
have similar foundations written in paper (or stone or clay tablets or
whatever). These documents speak, in few words, the entire nature of the
cultures whom they represent.
Licensing could effectively express the nature, desires, and spirit of the
Perl community, not only to grant rights, but to say once and for all that
we cannot tolerate abuse of those desires and our kind and generous
spirit.
It's a first step of many that must be taken in order for Perl 6 to be a
cultural phenomenon, or a "Perl for the People".
p
