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. You would be asking for copyright
> assignment, which would cause a lot of problems for a lot of
> people. (As in they would need to clear that with their legal
> departments and would be unable to contribute.)
Right, but I'm not asking it in perpetuity. Or for that long, even. Just
until we have a working license. If it's only a few people, or just me (or
nobody, depending on when things work out) that's fine. I just want
something that won't cause a problem when the final AL is done.
> On a related note, I think I see a fundamental issue. The
> original Artistic License was specifically designed to
> *discourage* having people create new implementations that
> replaces specific parts. You are telling me that having this
> happen is a goal. These two statements conflict.
I'll take your word for it. Which means we need to engineer the new AL so
folks can do this without onerous restriction.
> 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 from scratch or are
> free software.) Until you began talking about your desire to
> see new implementations I had never really wondered at that...
I'd assumed it would be the way it is now, with the choose your own
license policy. I'd hope that would continue.
Dan
