bkuhn wrote:
> > I don't know if the Preamble I wrote if perfect, because I got very
> > little feedback on it, and all the RFCs this group submitted. Those
> > last two weeks before RFC's were due, the traffic on this list was
> > basically dead, except for me posting revisions of RFCs. I hope that I
> > properly caught the spirit of the consensus properly, but without
> > feedback, that was a hard job.
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, and I apologize for my part of that. I tend to end up with very
> bursty periods of time to spend thinking about particular things, and they
> often don't line up with schedules very well.
There is no need to apologize; we're all volunteers here, and no one is
*expected* to get involved.
My only concern was that the lack of feedback would be a gotcha---I'd hate
to have people come out the woodwork and say: "You decided that license
without the input of the FOOBAR Subset of the Perl community."
I suppose that we could just say to such nay-sayers that they missed their
chance in the RFC process, but I would feel more comfortable doing that if I
wasn't the primary author of all the RFCs that came from this group.
> I think you did quite a good job; I expect the issue to come back up again
> when Larry's had a chance to look over the proposals and we'll have a few
> more chances to clarify and talk it through.
Actually, I just remembered---as a measure to offset the lack of input, and
to put another choice out there that some people seemed to like, I did
submit an "X11-license-only for perl6" RFC on the day of the deadline. It
was put into something called a "queued" state because I submitted it too
close to the deadline. I have no idea if it will ever be submitted to Larry
for comment, but people should know that RFC is "out there" somewhere. I
believe you can find it in this list's archives.
Anyway, if anyone would like to go read the RFCs relating to "license of
perl6" and make pointed comments about them (to go on record as dissenters
for archival purposes), that might be useful. Another option might be to
write another RFC that addresses other concerns, and submit it in the
"queue" that apparently exists.
Other than that, there's probably not much point on discussing the "license
of perl6" itself anymore until we hear from Larry on the licensing-related
RFCs. I am going to ask that we close discussion on it at this point, until
such time as Larry comments on RFCs.
At that time, we can discuss Larry's feedback, as well as CPAN licensing
issues, as there is little point in discussing CPAN issues until we know
what perl6' license is going to be.
So, let's close things for now, unless another Working Group comes to us for
information on a particular licensing concern.
Related to this, though, I have a procedural question:
Does anyone know if Larry is considering "leave it as it is" for all
options on RFCs? Chris noted that there wasn't a point in writing an RFC
that said: "perl's license stays the same", because it was implicit. I
wasn't clear that it was implicit. Have I misunderstood?
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
