At 15.27 +0000 01.14.2001, Simon Cozens wrote: >On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:27:28AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote: >> At 09.19 -0500 01.14.2001, Ben Tilly wrote: >> >That situation definitely had ActiveState violating the >> >spirit of the Artistic License, whether or not they were >> >violating the letter. >> >> They violated neither the spirit nor the letter. > >Incorrect. Indeed, the entire point of the OnePerl thingy was to >resolve the violation! No. It was to have Windows support built-in to the standard distribution. -- Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/ Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
- Re: no one is asking for Perl to be GPL... Chris Nandor
- Re: no one is asking for Perl to b... Nathan Torkington
- Re: no one is asking for Perl to be GPL... Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: no one is asking for Perl to be GPL-onl... Russ Allbery
- Re: no one is asking for Perl to be GPL... Chris Nandor
- Re: no one is asking for Perl to b... Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: no one is asking for Perl ... Chris Nandor
- Re: licensing issues Ben Tilly
- Re: licensing issues Chris Nandor
- Re: licensing issues Simon Cozens
- Re: licensing issues Chris Nandor
- Re: licensing issues Simon Cozens
- Re: licensing issues David Grove
- Re: licensing issues Dave Rolsky
- Re: licensing issues David Grove
- Re: licensing issues Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: licensing issues Russ Allbery
- Re: licensing issues David Grove
- Re: licensing issues Chris Nandor
- intent of a non-legally bindin... Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: licensing issues Bradley M. Kuhn