> The dual license is already such a compromise. What's wrong with the dual
> licensing scheme?
Ok, I'm learning here, please send me the link.
> Well, this obviously isn't true in general since Perl is a project to
> create a programming language and GNU is a project to create an operating
> system.
Actually, this the ~only~ obvious thing here. What I just learned from the
GNU/FSF/UWIN/MinGW issue is that perl ~is~ legally defined as an
operating system.
So we are all learning here. I am in the perl business, and I know that litigation
will kill my business.
> If you meant that the people working on the Perl project and the people
> working on the GNU project have the same licensing goals,
Have the same overall economic and technological goals, I am saying that the
licensing differences should not impact the creation of free s/w.
Also, I am speaking for others here, who are on this list but are not speaking up.
Not me :)
The perl XSUB process pulls in GNU code and glues into the perl batch system, allowing
a single point of entry, preventing bloat by sharing all
the tiny pieces between packages. Ultimately I would like to see these fully scoped
modules travel thru the ether to any type of perl VM.
So perl is bigger than GNU because it is no longer glue but moldable resin structure.
This will be true in the public perception as well.
Ø so is X, TeX, and any number of other pieces of software that
Ø well, maybe our efforts can achieve an overall agreement that keeps the licenses
from conflicting.
Ø
Ø aren't even under the GPL.
Ok, maybe they should be under the GPL, is there any reason we cant discuss what such
a document would look like with the possibility of
making it internation law ??
No time like the present.
> What I think you were trying to say here is that the people working on
> Perl and the FSF (which is a different entity than the GNU project) have
Once again, I don't believe in licensing, I just discovered that I have a talent for
negotiating the issues
If I can help, I will want to.
Speaking for "most perl people " is a dangerous thing to do. Speaking to people is
how I got interested in this issue. What I have learned is taht
people are not comfortable w/ the schism between all the different licenses and a few
are downright disturbed.
> working on Perl seem to be at least reasonably content with Perl being
> used for proprietary projects if people wish to, are interested in finding
> ways for proprietary software companies to work more closely with the Perl
> community and to be able to write Perl modules and the like, and otherwise
> are not particularly strongly behind the idea that all software should be
> free. There are exceptions, of course (it's a large community), but the
> FSF has a much clearer political goal. Perl doesn't really have as much
> in the way of political goals.
I guess the desire is to allow GNU s/w to pass thru to the perl license w/o penalty,
somehow.
Also, the GNU/UWIN issue is relevent becuase we need a legal way to compile and
distrubute Win32 perl, plus I just became friends w/ the whle
cc: list :)
That is what I am trying to discover in this thread.
Any hoo, licensing by design is a high noise / low signal topic. I was ~not~ my idea
I wish I was as good at coding as activist politics :)
