At 19.55 -0800 01.14.2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it is unfortunate that anyone would think someone else's choice
of license is unfortunate. :)
While I'm with Linus on this (those who write the code get to choose the
license), I think it's
At 22.39 -0500 01.14.2001, David Grove wrote:
I think that "charter" would be more palatable than "manifesto", although
I won't lose the sentiment in semantics. I've been thinking the same
thing, and agree entirely. Whereas the license could use some tightening
up to allow legal enforcement of
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 22.39 -0500 01.14.2001, David Grove wrote:
I think that "charter" would be more palatable than "manifesto",
although
I won't lose the sentiment in semantics. I've been thinking the same
thing, and agree entirely. Whereas the license could use
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please make sense if you are going to address me in the future, or
simply
don't bother addressing me at all. Thanks,
Following the thread(s), in order for this working group to make sense,
there must be a reason to look at our licenses. We have found
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what has come of it, but there was a big discussion about
changes to CPAN, including metadata about the modules, and if that ever
happens/catches on, you just have a place in the metadata for what
license(s) are used.
That's a very good
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps we want a Perl Manifesto that lays out our base goals in plain
English, separate from any licensing scheme.
FWIW, I tried to at least state the goals in plain English of the *Artistic
License only* in the Preamble of proposed AL-2.0. Of course,
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the purpose of such a "charter" should be to inform rather than
punish supposed offenders.
I agree. We want people to understand why the perl license is what it is,
and how it is ok for them to use it.
While lawyers tend to go right for the
David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then there is no point in working with licenses at all. If licenses will
not be enforced through litigation and our desires for the Perl language
cannot be enforced through public censure,
I believe that the proposed (Artistic-2.0|GPL) license is indeed
At 16:42 -0500 01.15.2001, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
For example, I'd like to see CPAN.pm warn you if you are about to
install a module which will, licensing-wise, force you down a GPL-only
or AL-only fork when you use it in your programs.
As long as it is an option, sure, some people would
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree entirely, as you may already know. It is very clear on this
point. The only significant business complaints I have _ever_ heard (from
actual businesses) about the AL comes from said businesses' lawyers.
A business' legal team typically has
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then there is no point in working with licenses at all. If licenses
will
not be enforced through litigation and our desires for the Perl
language
cannot be enforced through public censure,
I believe that
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you point me at this policy? My understanding from
reading what Richard has written is that he would like it
if all software were GPLed and GPL only.
GNU's policy on Perl licensing is on GNU's main
Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still think a copyright that offers a contract (ie the
same structure as the GPL) can do it.
The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the
proposed AL-2.0 and the original AL.
I believe (IANAL) that End User License Agreements
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The FSF surely wants Perl to be under a GPL compatible license (and,
(GPL|SOMETHING) is always GPL-compatible, by default). I don't think the
FSF has ever expressed a desire that Perl be GPL-only. In fact, the FSF
has
a policy of encouraging
Nathan Torkington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad, are we trying to come to a conclusion or is this just babble?
My impression of the current discussion is that primarily people are
clarifying what RFCs were put in place, and what the impact will be.
Some of the discussion has been off-topic,
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nick has yet to touch sv_gets() - partly 'cos it was too scary to mess
with - so you can if you like ;-)
(As I dig through old mail...)
What I was thinking of was making the scalar behind $/ magic,
It already is - you mean more magical? i.e. stuffs a
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still think a copyright that offers a contract (ie the
same structure as the GPL) can do it.
The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the
proposed AL-2.0 and the original AL.
MY
At 10:10 -0500 01.15.2001, David Grove wrote:
I think the purpose of such a charter should be to inform rather than
punish supposed offenders. To have suchg a wrong-headed motivation seems
to me to be asking for failure.
Then there is no point in working with licenses at all. If licenses
18 matches
Mail list logo
