From: Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, David Nicol wrote:
On 2/21/07, Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Insisting on _a_ license is actually a really good idea. Absent an
explicit license, CPAN does not have the right to redistribute the
software, nor do mirrors.
* Jenda Krynicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-22 16:30]:
CPAN is a distributed archive, a single entity hosted on many
computers around the world. So copying something from one
mirror to another does not IMHO equate distribution any more
than copying from one box in a webserver cluster to
On Feb 20, 2007, at 2:20 AM, Ashley Pond V wrote:
The license I'd love to see would be a Non-Governmental (Personal
and Private Industry Only). One can crack wise or politicize the
idea but it is worth bringing up. Whether or not others would honor
such a license does not mitigate one's
On Feb 21, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Chris Dolan wrote:
For a while Path-Class, Archive-Any and even Encode all lacked
license statements. Happily these are now fixed, but if a policy
like what you propose had been in place they would have not been
allowed in CPAN, much to everyone's loss.
On 20/02/07, Arthur Corliss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Ashley Pond V wrote:
I didn't want to feed this so responded personally to a couple off list.
Y'all couldn't resist sharing your politics and goofs though so… I apologize
to the disinterested if this just feeds it.
I
On 20/02/07, Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ashley!
On Tuesday 20 February 2007, Ashley Pond V wrote:
I didn't want to feed this so responded personally to a couple off
list. Y'all couldn't resist sharing your politics and goofs though so…
I apologize to the disinterested if this
Being an *extremely* political creature, I'm sorely tempted to wade
into this mess, but I won't. Can we just agree to stick to the
license's suitability for the CPAN?
Cheers,
Ovid
--
Buy the book -- http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Perl and CGI --
On Feb 21, 2007, at 4:56 AM, Adam Kennedy wrote:
Personally, I've always liked the idea we limit CPAN to at least
something like OSI-compatible licenses.
This would at least remove some ambiguity...
Adam K
I strongly disagree. I like the current non-policy to let anything
in, but
Ovid wrote:
Being an *extremely* political creature, I'm sorely tempted to wade
into this mess, but I won't. Can we just agree to stick to the
license's suitability for the CPAN?
Cheers,
Ovid
Perhaps this is just a me, too...
The law of unintended consequences (Every action has at least two
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Chris Dolan wrote:
CPAN and PAUSE are not responsible for any licenses or lack thereof
contained in the contents of the archive. We do recommend that authors
license their modules to avoid legal ambiguity and so that people may use the
code in good conscience. If you
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, David Nicol wrote:
On 2/21/07, Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Insisting on _a_ license is actually a really good idea. Absent an
explicit license, CPAN does not have the right to redistribute the
software, nor do mirrors.
that's nonsense. CPAN is equipment, it is
* Chris Dolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-21 16:00]:
For a while Path-Class, Archive-Any and even Encode all lacked
license statements. Happily these are now fixed, but if a
policy like what you propose had been in place they would have
not been allowed in CPAN, much to everyone's loss.
You
* imacat [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-19 07:20]:
Armies are merely people that follow their leaders, and their
ultimate leaders are the presidents and congresses.
Don’t blame me, I’m just a contractor.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
On Feb 21, 2007, at 5:37 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Chris Dolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-21 16:00]:
For a while Path-Class, Archive-Any and even Encode all lacked
license statements. Happily these are now fixed, but if a
policy like what you propose had been in place they would have
not been
I didn't want to feed this so responded personally to a couple off
list. Y'all couldn't resist sharing your politics and goofs though so…
I apologize to the disinterested if this just feeds it.
I find it difficult to believe, being a middling hacker compared to
some of you guys, that I'm the
On 19 Feb 2007, at 23:20, David Kaufman wrote:
[snip]
Enjoy!
Superb! :)
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:08:49 -0800
Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# from Ashley Pond V
# on Tuesday 20 February 2007 12:20 am:
The license I'd love to see would be a Non-Governmental (Personal and
Private Industry Only). One can crack wise or politicize the idea but
it is worth
--As of February 19, 2007 2:15:33 PM +0800, imacat is alleged to have said:
Whether the army is good or bad may not be the subject here. But
the modern economics system is complex. This kind of treatment against
the army is not fair.
--As for the rest, it is mine.
'Fair' is not the
Hi Ashley!
Ashley Pond V wrote:
Dave Rolsky wrote:
I don't know the exact rules of CPAN regarding non-free licenses, so
I'm not sure if this should be pulled. Unlike the Bantown license, it
probably doesn't prevent CPAN from distributing it. OTOH, if there
were a mirror at a .mil address,
I support the GNU over BSD license, though this is not the subject
here.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:53:38 -0600
Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 16, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Ashley Pond V wrote:
* You, are part or, work for an entity that directely produces
work or goods for any of
On Feb 16, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Ashley Pond V wrote:
If there are any law/license experts in the crowd, I'd love to see
a formal/named/solid version of this sort of license. It's just
about exactly what I've always wanted to put on all my own code.
-Ashley
On Friday, Feb 16, 2007, at 10:39
http://search.cpan.org/dist/PerlBuildSystem/licence.txt
I don't know the exact rules of CPAN regarding non-free licenses, so I'm
not sure if this should be pulled. Unlike the Bantown license, it probably
doesn't prevent CPAN from distributing it. OTOH, if there were a mirror at
a .mil
If there are any law/license experts in the crowd, I'd love to see a
formal/named/solid version of this sort of license. It's just about
exactly what I've always wanted to put on all my own code.
-Ashley
On Friday, Feb 16, 2007, at 10:39 US/Pacific, Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Ashley Pond V wrote:
If there are any law/license experts in the crowd, I'd love to see a
formal/named/solid version of this sort of license. It's just about exactly
what I've always wanted to put on all my own code.
What kind of idiocy is this?! There's a *lot* of
Ashley Pond V wrote:
If there are any law/license experts in the crowd, I'd love to see a
formal/named/solid version of this sort of license. It's just about
exactly what I've always wanted to put on all my own code.
Yikes.
I used to think like this -- ``my software is so awesome that people
Jonathan == Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jonathan (Look at OpenBSD vs. GNU... every GNU utility has been rewritten
Jonathan just because of bickering over licensing concerns. What. A.
Jonathan Waste.)
Not just bickering. The goal of BSD is BSD-licensing, which has more freedom
On Friday 16 February 2007, Jonathan Rockway wrote:
Ashley Pond V wrote:
If there are any law/license experts in the crowd, I'd love to see a
formal/named/solid version of this sort of license. It's just about
exactly what I've always wanted to put on all my own code.
Yikes.
I used to
* Randal L. Schwartz merlyn@stonehenge.com [2007-02-16 21:45]:
* Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Look at OpenBSD vs. GNU... every GNU utility has been
rewritten just because of bickering over licensing concerns.
What. A. Waste.)
Not just bickering. The goal of BSD is
* Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-16 22:55]:
And I have strong sentiments against doing What Everyone Else
Does (tm) and conformism.
Ends up that in the software world, this also means you have
strong sentiments in favour of being a pain in your users’ asses.
Regards,
--
Aristotle
On Feb 16, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
And I have strong sentiments against doing What Everyone Else Does
(tm) and
conformism.
Doing things others do is not conforism.
Doing things others don't do is not non-conformism.
--
Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = www.petdance.com =
30 matches
Mail list logo
