On Thursday 06 July 2006 00:36, Jonathan T. Rockway wrote: > Two comments, pretty much agreeing with chromatic and Ricardo: > > 1) How would this proposed module benefit the perl community? Why > can't you fix things in Test::Harness and send the patch in? If you fix > deployed modules, everyone wins. If you write your own module, it sits > on CPAN unused. > > What exactly is wrong with Test::Harness, anyway? The development team > is pretty agreeable, the code is good, the module works, etc. Is there > some large problem I'm missing? (A problem so large that TPF needs to > *pay* someone to fix it!?) >
I've answered some of these things in the following links: http://www.shlomifish.org/lecture/Perl/Lightning/Test-Run/ http://use.perl.org/~Shlomi+Fish/journal/27467 http://use.perl.org/~Shlomi+Fish/journal/27887 Also see my other replies to this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/perl-qa%40perl.org/msg05987.html And also the resource that Schwern pointed to: http://www.mail-archive.com/perl-qa%40perl.org/msg06014.html > 2) If you use GPL'd code in an MIT-licensed app, the entire app becomes > GPL. I don't think you can say, "this requires xyz GPL'd code, but if > it didn't it would be MIT". It's GPL by virtue of requiring GPL code. > (Hence the accusation that the GPL is 'viral' or whatever.) IANAL, but > this is my understanding from reading the license, the FSF's site, etc. > If the code isn't derived, though, feel free to MIT license it. There is a difference between derived code and inclusive code. The code that originated from other people's code was kept under the same licence (GPL+Artistic in this case). I also disclaimed any explicit ownership of it. OTOH, the code that was written from scratch and was my original code was licensed under the X11 licence, because it did not include anything else. > (The > fact of the matter, though, is that Perl uses the Perl license. I don't > really love the Artistic license, but I release my perl code under the > dual license because Everyone Else Does. I don't like doing everything only because everyone else does them. I like to think for myself what is the best course of action and long time strategy. > It makes everything work > nicely and builds community too :) > I don't see using the X11 licence for my software as anti-social. Like I said, anyone can easily fork it as a software of a different licence. It's also more permissive than the GPL+Artistic licence (and much less problematic than the Artistic 1.0 licence, which some people don't even consider as free-as-in-speech.) So far I've released all the software (Perl or otherwise) for which I had a choice under the Public Domain or X11 licence. Regards, Shlomi Fish --------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/ 95% of the programmers consider 95% of the code they did not write, in the bottom 5%.
