I am sure that Larry won't be writing an apocalypse on licensing anytime
soon, but in the meantime I was reading over the Artistic-2.0 proposal and
noted a minor grammar error in it.
I can't update the RFC, but figured I'd post the bugfix here. Attached is
a unified diff and a full copy of the c
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
C to propose that Perl go under an
X11-style license, but no one picked up the ball.
(I personally prefer my (Artistic-2.0|GPL) proposal, and Larry already
teased me (friendly, of course ;) about writing RFCs that I didn't actually
agree with, so I didn't bother to champion X11-style
s tend to go right for the legal "heart of the matter",
friendly, non-legally binding statements accompanying licenses stating
intent can certainly go a long way in making people feel comfortable with
the licensing scheme. Lawyers are people too, after all. ;)
--
Bradley M. Kuhn -
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.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
many free software and open source licenses
for this problem to be easy to solve.
I hope the RFC to continue the life of this group will be accepted.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
off-topic, but if people are unclear about
why the RFCs were written as they were, then it's worth discussing it.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
> "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The FSF surely wants Perl to be under a GPL compatible license (and,
> >(GPL|SOMETHING) is always GPL-compatible, by default). I don't think the
> >FSF has ever expressed a desire that Perl be GPL-only
rectly) is that
> he would not be by personality inclined to seek legal redress even if it
> were clearly within his rights to do so.
Well, I don't think there's much point in inferring what Larry will do. An
RFC concerning the trademark/service mark is under his advisement---we
g of the consensus is that we don't want Perl hackers at
companies to ever have to say: "I wanted to use and ship Perl, but the
company lawyers weren't comfortable with perl's license, so I didn't."
I think the proposed AL-2.0 will have better success in this regard than t
ense, and so that it
is completely clear that businesses who want to redistribute Perl for profit
can do so unfettered. I wrote an RFC to propose such corrections to the
Artistic license. We'll have to wait and see what Larry says about it.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
in Larry's
name, and have the trademark license require that if they call it "Perl", it
really is the canonical Perl implementation. (I believe I wrote an RFC that
proposed this; it's presumably currently under Larry's advisement).
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
discussions, please separate out your responses into multiple messages and
move the off-topic messagse to other lists and/or private email.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
one? It's sadly too late to make changes in this round, as it's Larry's
hands, but I would like to hear from you how we might make it more readable
and perhaps propose a modified RFC to Larry at a later time.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
ing is designed,
in part, to prevent schisms by allowing each part of the community to get
what it wants.
The question was: "Did the old Artistic license do what we wanted?" I
argued "no" in my RFCs. Some folks argued "yes". We'll see what Larry
decides.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
> with a "least of all evils" solution, I think, and I feel very strongly
>
> Where can this summary be found?
See the RFC's produced by the licensing working group, and feel free to post
questions to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
ink this makes a lot of sense.
Yes. I wrote an RFC about this, which you should be able to find in the RFC
archives. I don't have the number handy, but it is in the two-hundreds,
IIRC.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
that went in was (Artistic-2.0|GPL).
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
it.
As far as I can tell, this is FUD. Can you produce statements from these
lawyers? Every lawyer I have ever met things it is legally sound, including
those lawyers who are trying to find ways to violate it!
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
> At 12:29 AM 1/5/01 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm beginning to loathe software licenses in a *big* way, and I'm a half
> > > step away from saying to hell with it all and going fully publi
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
> > I personally think that the relying on LGPL'ed code is completely
> > reasonable. Some will disagree, so we need to come to a consensus on this
> > as a community.
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Liceses. Bletch.
Don't blame the licenses, blame the copyright law that makes them an
unfortunate necessity in many cases.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
the trademark, and the code copyrights,
> to Yet Another Society? (http://yetanother.org/) It's an independent
> society set up by Kevin Lenzo and some Perl luminaries to promote and
> protect Perl.
That's a good idea. I wish you'd have mentioned it while the RFC could
that come up. RFC
13 brings up this issue.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
renders this unenforceable" or "this is doesn't fit the open
source software defintion and/or isn't a free software license".
Other than that, it shouldn't change.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
I just froze the RFC that contains Artistic-2.0.
Here are the differences between beta3 and beta4 of the Artistic License.
I did the following things:
* clarified the "In addition," confusion that Dave brought up.
* Returned to saying "Freely Available" instead of "Exact License of". I
o
as far as we can and still permit proprietary software versions of Perl, as
long as they are called FooPerl.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
butable in source and binary if it's
> perl. Everything else is fine and dandy.
This is the case---if they call it the same name as Package, the source must
be Freely Available. They can still call it VisualPerl if they install it
to a different place. Only a trademark on Perl can stop that.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
ense does the best it can to reach
this goal.
I have seen few comments on it, though.
Ben, how do you feel about it?
Chris?
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
> New Perl Mascot
>
> Maintainer: David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 28 Sep 2000
> Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Number: 343
> Version: 1
> Status: Developing
I basically agree that we need a mascot, and one that isn't encumbered by a
proprietary trademark license.
Howeve
> The Artistic License
> Version 2.0beta3, October 2000
I just realized that some of you might have read 2.0beta2 and don't want to
take the time to read beta3. Here's the change, so you can view them
quickly. I'll do the same for future ver
th a trademark on Perl;
but that would be up to Larry to decide to go for the trademark.
> This appears to provide such a loophole that needs to be closed.
I don't see the loophole you are describing, at least not in (7) and (8). I
realize that (5b) is a so-called "loophole" that allows PerlEX and
PerlScript, but I don't think the Perl community wants to close that
"loophole"; to do so would be going the full copyleft route.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
ll note in the documentation to say:
"You can get the source of this if you want, upon request".
I did reword (6c) a bit to make it clearer:
(c) ensure that the Modified Version includes notification of the
changes made from the Standard Version, and offer the
ation describing how it differs from the
Standard Version, and rename your Modified Version so that the
name is substantially different from the Standard Version.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
claimed Larry should get a trademark on "Perl", in the area of computer
science, and license it freely to anyone who uses the Standard Version of
"Perl", but not to those who aren't using the Standard Version. This would
help reach the goal that the Artistic License tries for.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
ure enough to give up the camel
image.
> OT: What's the history of the camel? Does it predate O'Reilly's involvement?
Larry Wall probably knows for sure, but I believe O'Reilly was the first to
use the camel in reference to Perl.
I started using Perl right a few months after the
n (7).
Version 2.0 addresses point (b) in (7).
Version 2.0 addresses points (c) and (h) in (8).
Version 2.0 addresses points (f) and (g) in (9).
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
In writing the last commentary, I noted some typos in my proposed Artistic
License.
I have corrected them, and here is 2.0beta2 of the license.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
The Artistic License
Version 2.0beta2, October
like this just give the copyright holders and
contributors a false sense of security, so I didn't add one. This issue
is addressed in libel and trademark law.
Ben's Section 2.11:
I am not sure what 2.11 is trying to do. It seems like it might be
trying to avoid licensing conflicts, which it really can't do with a
statement of that nature. Conflicts are conflicts, no matter what a
license says about trying to resolve them.
Ben's Section 2.12:
This seems to be rehash of the permissions already given, so I didn't
include it.
Ben's Section 3:
I used this almost verbatim. It seems good.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
al AL.
Late tonight, I plan to write an RFC proposal for the new proposed license.
Please post any comments on the new license that you have.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
The Artistic License
Versi
I got seriously sidetracked the last two days, and did not get to my
hacks of license Ben wrote. However, I think that it probably needs a full
rewrite. I am going to try to write a clearer text license that tries to
do what Bens seems to want, and post it tommorrow. I like the idea that
Ben propo
s
license and be able to understand it.
I will modify Ben's version, and will post my draft today or tommorrow
morning.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
, it seems like that group will just get started when
the language freezes, so there doesn't seem any reason to freeze
internals-RFCs by the deadline, either.
So, it'd probably be good if we changed some of the deadlines on the various
working groups to reflect reality. Comments?
--
cross Australia to deliver it, or a large fee may be "reasonable" just
> for the expertise to providing it on RTX11 8-inch floppies.
Have you taken a look at the RFC I posted after that? It redefines
"Reasonable Copying Fee" a bit better, I think.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
o agree with you, but I thought the "minimal change"
proposal had some merit, so I thought it deserved an RFC. Just because I
wrote the RFC doesn't mean I endorse that plan over some other one.
Perhaps I should say that explicitly in the RFC
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
> Bradley M . Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >I don't think this is completely out the question, either. I was actually
> >planning on writing an RFC that proposes that all contributions to the core
> >be copyright assigned to Larry.
Nick Ing-Simmons
g changes than he has to,
I still haven't seen your proposal on this issue exactly spelled out, but I
may have missed it. It sounds like an important proposal, and probably
deserves its own RFC, as these issues are seperate from actual license changes.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
t; could (after a specified period of public discussion with no remaining
> objections from copyright holders) relicense Perl really fly?
I am not sure I understand the question; perhaps I failed to read some of
the relevant discussion. Could you take a minute and point me to your
proposal in the archives?
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> Bradley M . Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >(Think of it as writing a Last Will and Testament---you can do it on your
> > own in a pinch, but it's always better to write a draft and then have a
> > lawyer help you rewrite it
aw,
so I don't see the point in having it. This would be an issue for trademark
law.
With the addition of part e in section 5, I believe this is a free software
license, incompatible with the GPL. It's probably an open source license
too.
We'd need to run it by a lawyer to confirm that, though.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
ter off if a writer does. Lawyers are not well-versed, in
> >> general, in writing clearly.
> >
> >Comments like the above worry me a lot.
>
> And comments that are worried about such comments worry me a lot.
I agree with Chris on this point; I think it's ok if we right a license
draft, give it to a lawyer, get comments back, and iterate in that fashion.
As long as copyright lawyer tells us all the implications of our license,
there is no harm in writing it ourselves.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
opers to trust Larry
completely in matters of licensing, and thus copyright assign to him so he
can make changes as necessary.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
Adams, Johnnie W wrote:
> Well, yesterday, after Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
> "I have been talking with Eben Moglen, a prominent law professor at
> Columbia University, and he is willing to help us in developing some
> proposed new versions of
hould we try
to do it in a copyright license, or is trademark law a better approach?"
I will try to run this by Eben, if I can get some of his cycles (he is
helping pro-bono, so this might be hard). If anyone else has some lawyer
friends who are willing to help, that'd be great.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
meone else can find yet another lawyer to volunteer to help (and/or pay
one out of their own pocket), a second opinion is always useful.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
sion; we develop RFCs that Larry then
uses to make decisions about what should happen.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
56 matches
Mail list logo
