Chris Nandor wrote:
>At 8:22 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >>I was going to disagree, but then I just decided I don't know what this
> >>means.  What I don't understand is this thing about incorporating 
> >>into the Standard Version.  Why does it matter?
> >
> >Because if you are going to embrace and extend, I want the
> >extension distributed on terms where the maintainer of the
> >standard version does not have to play catch-up if you had
> >some good ideas.
>On the other hand, I don't want to put any such burden on users of my
>software.  If they want to extend it to do whatever the want to do, then I
>don't see why I should care, as long as they don't call it perl.
You are clearly not reading closely.  My statement several times
now is that I don't care what you do if you don't call it perl,
and I have even given examples (oraperl and perlex) of people
who did exactly that.

The only concern is if you call it perl (embrace), it is not
perl (extend), and your goal is to confuse people about what
perl is (extinguish).  Go look at what Microsoft tried with
Kerberos and Java if you have any questions about what it is
that I object to.
> >And I don't want your extension to wind
> >up in due course of time under a license which leaves you
> >with essentially absolute control.
>If someone wants to take the source to perl and make something not called
>perl and make it totally incompatible with perl and somewhat proprietary
>... *shrug*.

Where have I said anything indicating that this is a problem?
Please quote chapter and verse.

Please, are you trying to have a discussion with me, or argue
with some straw-man who you would like to call "Ben Tilly"?
I would prefer to have a discussion.

>Why don't you just use the GPL?  That's what I don't understand.

It looks like you are talking to that straw-man again.

Please talk to me instead.  I have more interesting things
to say.

Just in case you sincerely meant that question, here is a
sincere answer.

    This list is for discussions of Perl licensing.  We
    wish to come up with an acceptable licensing scheme
    for Perl.  Perl is used within a number of products
    which are not compatible with the GPL, and people
    want to continue to allow this.  Therefore the GPL
    on its own is not an acceptable license.

    I happen to think that the idea of a dual license was
    a stroke of inspired brilliance on Larry Wall's part.
    I see no reason to not continue to dual-license.  I
    see every reason to do what he did before and make it
    GPL and something else.  The only question is what
    that something else should be.

    The guidance we have for that something else is that
    previous Larry made it clear that he wants to keep
    some sort of artistic control over Perl, but doesn't
    want to impose any other restrictions.  The wording
    he came up with is the current AL.

Does that answer your question?

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

Reply via email to