On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David Grove wrote:
> Ladies and gentlemen, maybe licensing isn't the method of choice of
> preventing the abuses that are harming this community, but it seems to be
> the appropriate place to affect at least one of the two:
What abuses? What the heck are you talking about?
Why are people suddenly freaking out about licenses? Perl's dual license
seems to have served it well, since AFAIK there has never been a major
issue where someone has been in violation of the license (intentional or
otherwise).
What problem are you aiming to fix?
> 2) The existing policies (or lack thereof) or lack of attention or concern
> allow a(ny) company to purchase strong control in the development and
> direction of the Perl language for proprietary goals (which is why I asked
> the question about 5.005_03... linux distros are outright rejecting it
> everywhere, as is FreeBSD).
Uh-oh, here comes the ActiveState rant. AFAICT, your ActiveState
hostility mostly stems from your assertion that they were responsible for
the release schedule of 5.6.0. This has two big assumptions:
1. That it was released too early. I happen to agree but that's largely
irrelevant.
2. That AS somehow had a vested interest in this early release and
knowingly forced a buggy 5.6.0 on the community.
Even agreeing with #1, I have yet to see any evidence on #2.
And mind you, I am very anti-corporate and skeptical of all that
corporations do. Yet I still think you have no case.
-dave
/*==================
www.urth.org
We await the New Sun
==================*/
