Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 22.39 -0500 01.14.2001, David Grove wrote:
I think that "charter" would be more palatable than "manifesto",
although
I won't lose the sentiment in semantics. I've been thinking the same
thing, and agree entirely. Whereas the license could use
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please make sense if you are going to address me in the future, or
simply
don't bother addressing me at all. Thanks,
Following the thread(s), in order for this working group to make sense,
there must be a reason to look at our licenses. We have found
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree entirely, as you may already know. It is very clear on this
point. The only significant business complaints I have _ever_ heard (from
actual businesses) about the AL comes from said businesses' lawyers.
A business' legal team typically has
Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still think a copyright that offers a contract (ie the
same structure as the GPL) can do it.
The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the
proposed AL-2.0 and the original AL.
I believe (IANAL) that End User License Agreements
"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. In fact, the FSF
has
a policy of encouraging
Nathan Torkington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad, are we trying to come to a conclusion or is this just babble?
My impression of the current discussion is that primarily people are
clarifying what RFCs were put in place, and what the impact will be.
Some of the discussion has been off-topic,
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you point me at this policy? My understanding from
reading what Richard has written is that he would like it
if all software were GPLed and GPL only.
GNU's policy on Perl licensing is on GNU's main
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still think a copyright that offers a contract (ie the
same structure as the GPL) can do it.
The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the
proposed AL-2.0 and the original AL.
MY
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
