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 would be
> a fruitless effort. Suffice it to say that no such damage has existed,
> ever.
Indeed, this combination has positively helped Perl in many ways. The Artistic
License reflects what Larry wants to do with the distribution of Perl; if
people can play by that, cool. There are plenty of people who *can't* use
GPLed code, for various reasons, political and otherwise, [1] and the AL has
been instrumental to Perl's uptake in those cases.
If you want a concrete example, talk to Nick I-S about Texas Instruments' use
of Perl. He makes a very good case that without the dual licensing, TI would
not have been able to use Perl. And we want TI, and other people, to use Perl,
and we want to make it as possible as possible for them to do so.
So that's the verifiable truth: the combination of the GPL and the AL has
helped Perl and helped people use Perl that otherwise wouldn't have been able
to. This isn't mere speculation. There are cases like that of TI which prove
it.
[1] Particularly the notorious viral clause.
--
"Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative."
-- Peter da Silva
