> Respectfully, as with the other
> issues, let's please give Larry his time at bat with the RFC as it stands
> rather than second guessing ourselves again redundantly after the fact.
very good, here's your lollipop ;)
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:27:21PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Could you explain why do you think going more GPL would be a good thing
> for Perl?
I do not think that Bradley is suggesting that Perl would "go more GPL",
because that would be indefensibly insane. Bradley is proposing that
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:24:06PM +, David Grove wrote:
> This was the subject of a list and an RFC. I'd hope not to see what we
> worked hard to come up with not go to waste, guys and gals. We came up
> with a "least of all evils" solution, I think, and I feel very strongly
Where can this s
This was the subject of a list and an RFC. I'd hope not to see what we
worked hard to come up with not go to waste, guys and gals. We came up
with a "least of all evils" solution, I think, and I feel very strongly
that not protecting Perl from outright theft, especially using very iffy
licenses al
> But yes, I see no way to put perl solely under the GPL. That's just about
> the worst thing we could do, aside from making perl non-"free."
This is now *way way* off topic for perl6-internals. A relevant issue for
perl6-internals had been whether we could or should rely on an LPGL
library (gm
Could you explain why do you think going more GPL would be a good thing
for Perl? What things it would change compared with the current scheme?
What problems it would solve? Do you not think it would create new ones?
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People who are going to steal the source will do so regardless of the
> license on the source, and the people who are going to respect the license
> will do so regardless of which it is.
The license has to be sound, clear, and defendable legally---that m
At 15:32 -0500 2001.01.05, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>Honestly, the license we choose will only restrict those people who will
>respect it, either for moral or legal reasons. That's one reason to choose
>a license that places the fewest restrictions on those people, and the GPL
>is not that license.
Tr
At 08:18 PM 1/5/01 +, John van V wrote:
>I am supporting regular GNU licensing to relieve the pain I am hearing
>about in the commercial zone where folks are allegedly up to NG.
People who are going to steal the source will do so regardless of the
license on the source, and the people who
I am supporting regular GNU licensing to relieve the pain I am hearing about in the
commercial zone where folks are allegedly up to NG.
Also if we use the GNU license, then we dont have to worry about applications meant
for perl being written in some other less appropriate
language because of
10 matches
Mail list logo
