At 10:10 -0500 01.15.2001, David Grove wrote:
>> I think the purpose of such a "charter" should be to inform rather than
>> punish supposed offenders.  To have suchg a wrong-headed motivation seems
>> to me to be asking for failure.
>Then there is no point in working with licenses at all. If licenses will
>not be enforced through litigation and our desires for the Perl language
>cannot be enforced through public censure, we might as well have a license
>that simply says, "Do whatever you want with this, we don't care
>(especially if you're in bed with ORA)." All discussion is moot, working
>with the wordings of the licenses is in vain unless it is sufficient to do
>so only to please a small group of fanatics (lawyers don't count, because
>we won't use them), and we simply have to tolerate the abuses currently in
>place and likely those to come in the future. I can't imagine that you'd
>find that situation acceptable, Chris, unless you have better ideas about
>how to remedy them. (Continuing to sweep them under the rug doesn't

I say that this charter thing should not be designed to be punitive, and
you say that this means all discussion about licensing, charters, and the
rest is pointless in light of that idea.

Please make sense if you are going to address me in the future, or simply
don't bother addressing me at all.  Thanks,

Chris Nandor                      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open Source Development Network    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to