John van V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I was really amused to see RMS and Eric Raymond agree for the first time
> in history where Chinese Linux companies were pirating the OS.

I actually doubt RMS agreed that they were "pirating".  I am sure he would
have used the word "copyright infringement".  Pirates tend to rape, murder
and steal physical goods from people.  Copyright infringement is not as bad
as any of those things.

But, since free software licenses use copyright, copyright infringement can
happen, if the free software licenses aren't followed.

> The problem isn't with the artistic license; it is with the GNU license.
> So let's fix the GPL.

It's actually a bit late to propose new RFC's to Larry about licensing.

However, I might as well ask, what is it that you see is "broken" about the
GPL?  The Artistic license needs changes because of the various
incongruencies and inconsistencies found by people in both the open source
and free software communities, and documented in RFCs.  Have you found such
inconsistencies in the GPL?  And, if so, how do they effect the dual license
of Perl?

Also, note that if we use a modified version of the GPL, it will likely be
incompatible with the real GPL, which will cause big licensing problems.
So, we should likely avoid modifying the GPL itself at all costs (but
dual-licensing is of course a great idea).
> Like, who do we know in Boston who is tough as nails (and doesn't pay for
> her own drinks)?

I have no idea what this means.
> My whole point is to try to prevent a schism of the free s/w community to
> make sure the world gets the best benefit from perl6.

I don't see how such a schism would come about.  Dual licensing is designed,
in part, to prevent schisms by allowing each part of the community to get
what it wants.

The question was: "Did the old Artistic license do what we wanted?"  I
argued "no" in my RFCs.  Some folks argued "yes".  We'll see what Larry

Bradley M. Kuhn  -

PGP signature

Reply via email to