"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Then there is no point in working with licenses at all. If licenses
> > not be enforced through litigation and our desires for the Perl
> > cannot be enforced through public censure,
> I believe that the proposed (Artistic-2.0|GPL) license is indeed
> through litigation, or through cease and desist orders.  I think there
> too many problems with the original Artistic to make it enforceable, and
> that's one of the reasons I proposed the rewrite.

I wasn't referring to our ability legally to enforce it, but our (Larry's)
willingness to enforce it. Aside from his calm and gentle nature (though a
fascinating slyness is a strong impression I get from him), conceptualize
precisely whom he would be fighting given the current circumstances.

Satisfying Stillman might be good enough for the FSF and ODSN and GNU, but
that's quite insubstantial and superficial. Adding legal strength is a
good thing, but doesn't help much with the current situation. Although the
current situation could, I doubt, be repeated in the future, it is serious
enough, and conuing to get more sufficiently serious, to address it here
or in some related offshoot in a very real and final manner.


Reply via email to