"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 A
"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
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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,
>
> I be
At 16:42 -0500 01.15.2001, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>For example, I'd like to see CPAN.pm warn you if you are about to
>install a module which will, licensing-wise, force you down a GPL-only
>or AL-only fork when you use it in your programs.
As long as it is an option, sure, some people would proba
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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,
I believe that the proposed (Artistic-2.0|GPL) license is inde
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the purpose of such a "charter" should be to inform rather than
> punish supposed offenders.
I agree. We want people to understand why the perl license is what it is,
and how it is ok for them to use it.
While lawyers tend to go right for the
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps we want a Perl Manifesto that lays out our base goals in plain
> English, separate from any licensing scheme.
FWIW, I tried to at least state the goals in plain English of the *Artistic
License only* in the Preamble of proposed AL-2.0. Of cour
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't know what has come of it, but there was a big discussion about
> changes to CPAN, including metadata about the modules, and if that ever
> happens/catches on, you just have a place in the metadata for what
> license(s) are used.
That's a very g
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:
> >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 en
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 Agreemen
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 h
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 fou
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 lic
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
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 some tightening
>up to allow legal enforcement of
At 19.55 -0800 01.14.2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I think it is unfortunate that anyone would think someone else's choice
>> of license is unfortunate. :)
>
>While I'm with Linus on this (those who write the code get to choose the
>license), I think it'
17 matches
Mail list logo
