[Grabbing an old thread...]
Ben Tilly wrote:
> My understanding is that the intent of the AL is to keep there from
> being a proprietary derivative named perl with restricted source. (If it
> is not named perl then that is explicitly allowed.)
I believe my draft of the Artistic License does
At 02:04 PM 9/26/00 -0500, David Grove wrote:
> > 4) Someone writes a new version of piece X of perl, for example a better
> > optimizer or a backend that interfaces into a compiler's back end. (Like
> > GCC or Digital's GEM compiler backend) Perl *is* the whole point here.
>
>I'm not familiar wit
On Tuesday, September 26, 2000 12:54 PM, Dan Sugalski [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> At 07:08 AM 9/26/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >>
> >>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >>
> >> > Is it a conflict with the aims of Perl 6 in general that various
> >> > derivatives
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 07:08 AM 9/26/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>>
>>> > 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 Implementat
On 25 Sep 2000, at 13:05, Ben Tilly wrote:
> David Grove wrote:
>
> > However, I am speaking in generalities. If it's
> > perl, it's redistributable. If it isn't redistributable, it isn't
> > perl. This include both binaries and source, since binaries are only
> > translations of source into anot
On 25 Sep 2000, at 10:03, Ben Tilly wrote:
> I think David is confused about this situation, but what he
> said is not entirely false. Anyone who wants can get Perl,
> make changes under the GPL, and release the hacked up version
> under the GPL. You would now have a GPL-only fork of Perl
> whi
Philip Newton wrote:
>
>On 25 Sep 2000, at 10:03, Ben Tilly wrote:
>
> > I think David is confused about this situation, but what he
> > said is not entirely false. Anyone who wants can get Perl,
> > make changes under the GPL, and release the hacked up version
> > under the GPL. You would now h
At 07:08 AM 9/26/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>
>>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>
>> > 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
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 6:02 -0400 2000.09.26, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >Dave Storrs wrote:
> >>
> >>Something that I am a little stuck on...here is my understanding of the
> >>way Perl is currently distributed and what it all means. I think I must
> >>be confused about something...could someone stra
At 6:02 -0400 2000.09.26, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Dave Storrs wrote:
>>
>>Something that I am a little stuck on...here is my understanding of the
>>way Perl is currently distributed and what it all means. I think I must
>>be confused about something...could someone straighten me out?
>>
>>1) Works deve
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 wi
Dave Storrs wrote:
>
>Something that I am a little stuck on...here is my understanding of the
>way Perl is currently distributed and what it all means. I think I must
>be confused about something...could someone straighten me out?
>
>1) Works developed in Perl may be distributed under either the
Something that I am a little stuck on...here is my understanding of the
way Perl is currently distributed and what it all means. I think I must
be confused about something...could someone straighten me out?
1) Works developed in Perl may be distributed under either the GPL or the
AL, dealer's ch
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. Yo
The issue was closed ages ago. Continuing it in this direction is pointless.
However, I find it fascinating how tempting it seems to be for a moron to take
a cheap shot at someone trying to _correct_ a problem just because they've had
a few too many. Assuming that you have a remote clue, and ar
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 11:28 -0500 2000.09.25, David Grove wrote:
>> Evidently you've recognized a problem area that I may not have seen
>> before
> But you HAVE seen it before. You've specifically discussed this
> apparent problem on many occassions. Please do not be di
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
At 03:57 PM 9/25/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>[...]
>>>As soon as you get many implementations, you start to get into
>>>the portability nightmare. We differ on how much of a problem
>>>we think that is.
>>
>>Multiple implementations are good. All the languages that've had lon
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[...]
>>As soon as you get many implementations, you start to get into
>>the portability nightmare. We differ on how much of a problem
>>we think that is.
>
>Multiple implementations are good. All the languages that've had long-term
>viability have had multiple implementations
At 01:22 PM 9/25/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>The more ubiquitous Perl the language (as opposed to perl the
>>implementation) is, the better off we all are. I, for one, would be
>>*thrilled* if once we got a solid reference doc out for perl 6 someone else
>>besides us wrote an
At 19:07 +0100 2000.09.25, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 02:02:30PM -0400, Chris Nandor wrote:
>> No. I acknowledged that you perceive it as a problem, becacuse I've seen
>> you rant on it before, many times. I do not acknowledge any problem at all.
>
>Might I humbly suggest that
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
>On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 01:22:53PM -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
[...]
> > As soon as you get many implementations, you start to get into
> > the portability nightmare.
>
>Not at all! That's what the solid reference doc's for. Evidently we
>disagree
>on how solid it should be. :)
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 02:02:30PM -0400, Chris Nandor wrote:
> No. I acknowledged that you perceive it as a problem, becacuse I've seen
> you rant on it before, many times. I do not acknowledge any problem at all.
Might I humbly suggest that this discussion is going nowhere fast? Correction,
i
At 12:17 -0500 2000.09.25, David Grove wrote:
>It proved a point. The point was, you said that there was no such thing, then
>turned right around and gave it a name with the complete realization that the
>problem exists, and where.
No. I acknowledged that you perceive it as a problem, becacuse I
David Grove wrote:
>
> > Is there anything that stops me from taking my binary copy
> > of Perl from ActiveState, cutting it to CD, and handing it to
> > someone else? I thought not!
>
>You appear to be unfamiliar with ActiveState's license. It is specifically
>prohibited from being redistributed
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 01:22:53PM -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >The more ubiquitous Perl the language (as opposed to perl the
> >implementation) is, the better off we all are. I, for one, would be
> >*thrilled* if once we got a solid reference doc out for perl 6 someone else
> >besides us wrote an i
> This is the nightmare of JavaScript. This is one of the reasons
> that I prefer Perl over Java. This is...you know my opinion.
> But I recognize the benefit as well. I don't think it is a
> *bad* choice, but I think it is a choice to be made with open eyes
> and recognition of the tradeoffs.
It proved a point. The point was, you said that there was no such thing, then
turned right around and gave it a name with the complete realization that the
problem exists, and where.
Again, this is a valid licensing concern, do not turn it into a pro- or con-
ActiveState rant. My intention in
> Is there anything that stops me from taking my binary copy
> of Perl from ActiveState, cutting it to CD, and handing it to
> someone else? I thought not!
You appear to be unfamiliar with ActiveState's license. It is specifically
prohibited from being redistributed without permission, from Per
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 08:00:32AM -0400, Chris Nandor wrote:
> >The conbination of the GPL's freedom and the
> >AL's loopholes have been a primary vehicle in damage to certain areas of the
> >perl language and communities,
>
> I'd ask you to give one example of such damage, but I realize that wo
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>At 12:28 PM 9/25/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>As long as Larry is really OK with giving away the store, I don't think
>>anyone
>>else should object.
>
>"Giving away the store", such as it is (and it really isn't) is,
>ultimately, good for perl, and something we should encou
On Monday, September 25, 2000 9:54 AM, Chris Nandor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> At 10:42 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >The original cannot be restricted. A derivative could be. My
> >understanding is that the intent of the AL is to keep there from
> >being a proprietary derivative
> Have you tried those avenues?
I have, and I received a confession of guilt in the process, I'm afraid, and an
"I don't care".
At 12:28 PM 9/25/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>As long as Larry is really OK with giving away the store, I don't think anyone
>else should object.
"Giving away the store", such as it is (and it really isn't) is,
ultimately, good for perl, and something we should encourage.
The more ubiquitous Per
David Grove wrote:
>
>On Monday, September 25, 2000 9:16 AM, Chris Nandor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>wrote:
>
> > Yes, but no one can restrict the redistribution of Perl (or perl). You
> > can, perhaps (though I am not entirely convinced), restrict the
> > distribution of some specific distributio
At 11:28 -0500 2000.09.25, David Grove wrote:
>You think my "company X" is ActiveState?
It always is.
>Evidently you've recognized a problem
>area that I may not have seen before
But you HAVE seen it before. You've specifically discussed this apparent
problem on many occassions. Please do no
At 10:45 -0500 2000.09.25, David Grove wrote:
>expensive on the market. This restriction of redistribution of the perl core
>binary _is_ taking advantage of the situations and licenses unfairly and
There is no such restriction. Nowhere is the perl binary for any specific
platform restricted. On
David Grove wrote:
>
>On Monday, September 25, 2000 7:01 AM, Chris Nandor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>wrote:
> > At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
> > >Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
> > >should
> > >not be permitted in the future. It should be im
On Monday, September 25, 2000 9:16 AM, Chris Nandor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> Yes, but no one can restrict the redistribution of Perl (or perl). You
> can, perhaps (though I am not entirely convinced), restrict the
> distribution of some specific distribution, but not perl (or Perl) its
David Grove wrote:
>
> > Um, distribution under the GPL has to include offers of source.
> >
> > In fact the terms of the GPL are all designed to promote a very
> > specific philosophy that is counter to traditional commercial
> > practices!
>
>True, but it hasn't always happened.
People do not a
On Monday, September 25, 2000 7:01 AM, Chris Nandor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
> >Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
> >should
> >not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
> >
> Um, distribution under the GPL has to include offers of source.
>
> In fact the terms of the GPL are all designed to promote a very
> specific philosophy that is counter to traditional commercial
> practices!
True, but it hasn't always happened.
> >If perl is to be called free software, there
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 10:42 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >The original cannot be restricted. A derivative could be. My
> >understanding is that the intent of the AL is to keep there from
> >being a proprietary derivative named perl with restricted source.
> >(If it is not named perl
At 10:42 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote:
>The original cannot be restricted. A derivative could be. My
>understanding is that the intent of the AL is to keep there from
>being a proprietary derivative named perl with restricted source.
>(If it is not named perl then that is explicitly allowed
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 10:03 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >Chris Nandor wrote:
[...]
> >I think David is confused about this situation, but what he
> >said is not entirely false. Anyone who wants can get Perl,
> >make changes under the GPL, and release the hacked up version
> >under th
At 10:03 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Chris Nandor wrote:
>>At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
>> >Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
>>should
>> >not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
>> >entity, based on t
Chris Nandor wrote:
>At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
> >Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
>should
> >not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
> >entity, based on the GPL, to restrict the redistribution of Perl, w
Chris Nandor wrote:
>At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
> >Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
>should
> >not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
> >entity, based on the GPL, to restrict the redistribution of Perl, w
At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
>Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today should
>not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
>entity, based on the GPL, to restrict the redistribution of Perl, which is a
>right seemingly gr
David Grove wrote:
>Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
>should
>not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
>entity, based on the GPL, to restrict the redistribution of Perl, which is
>a
>right seemingly granted by the AL. The co
Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today should
not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
entity, based on the GPL, to restrict the redistribution of Perl, which is a
right seemingly granted by the AL. The conbination of the GPL's f
At 07:37 PM 9/24/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>We have mere days to get any final RFCs in.
>
>Is there any significant objection to my proposing two?
>
>1) Perl should switch to something like an MIT license
> together with a trademark on Perl (likely with O'Reilly
> requested to care of the det
We have mere days to get any final RFCs in.
Is there any significant objection to my proposing two?
1) Perl should switch to something like an MIT license
together with a trademark on Perl (likely with O'Reilly
requested to care of the details).
2) Continue dual-licensing GPL/AL with the
53 matches
Mail list logo
