RE: Why (7) and (8) in the Artistic-2.0 (was Re: RFC 346 (v1) Perl6's License Should be (GPL|Artistic-2.0))

2000-09-30 Thread David Grove
Let ActiveState make their PerlScript, PerlEX, and pseudocompiler if they want, and charge whatever they want for it. But if perl is to be free, it needs to be redistributable without any loopholes providing them the ability to proprietarize the language itself, or make a community

Re: RFC idea

2000-09-30 Thread Bradley M. Kuhn
[Grabbing an old thread...] Ben Tilly wrote: My understanding is that the intent of the AL is to keep there from being a proprietary derivative named perl with restricted source. (If it is not named perl then that is explicitly allowed.) I believe my draft of the Artistic License does

Re: new perl mascot

2000-09-30 Thread Simon Cozens
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 11:52:40AM -0500, David Grove wrote: That's the current running hope, I'll change the RFC to match it shortly. However, since I can't realistically expect this to happen, it wouldn't make sense to do more than suggest it as a first course of action. I don't think