Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
[...]
Sorry, I thought most would be familiar with this story.
Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said as the usual "BSD-like
licenses are evil, just see what Microsoft did with Kerberos".
Ah, sorry.
No, I am not relig
Chris Nandor wrote:
At 20:04 -0700 2000.09.11, Russ Allbery wrote:
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But my point is that I don't want a laywer actually writing the
license.
I would rather he give his input and opinions, and then others do the
writing. I am far more interested in
Chris Nandor wrote:
At 10:41 -0600 2000.09.11, Tom Christiansen wrote:
I suggest that one explore the answer to this question:
What does one wish to prohibit people from doing?
That is an excellent question. Bradley Kuhn asked we hold off on more
discussion until he can release some
Chris Nandor wrote:
At 8:22 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
I was going to disagree, but then I just decided I don't know what this
means. What I don't understand is this thing about incorporating
changes
into the Standard Version. Why does it matter?
Because if you are going
Chris Nandor wrote:
At 8:24 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
And we also have statements of fact that some lawyers do find it
acceptable. If you had said "some," I would have agreed. But I took
your
lack of quantifying modifier to be a statement that all, or even most,
la
The Perl6 RFC Librarian quoth:
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Perl6's License Should Be a Minor Bugfix of Perl5's License
[...]
This resolves very few of the IMHO rather serious issues I
have found with the current license. The Perl
Chris Nandor wrote:
At 11:01 -0400 2000.09.22, Ben Tilly wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[...]
Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license:
"The contents of this archive, except for packages in the ext/ directory
explicitly marked otherwise, are placed into the p
Chris Nandor wrote:
At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
should
not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
entity, based on the GPL, to restrict the redistribution of Perl, which
David Grove wrote:
Um, distribution under the GPL has to include offers of source.
In fact the terms of the GPL are all designed to promote a very
specific philosophy that is counter to traditional commercial
practices!
True, but it hasn't always happened.
People do not always meet
David Grove wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2000 7:01 AM, Chris Nandor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
should
not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for
t due to an external deadline,
we probably don't have enough time to give your concerns much
more attention. Not to mention the fact that I sincerely
believe the situation that bothers you does have a good
solution without being specifically addressed in Perl's
licensing.
"John van V" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the MinGW.Sourceforge.net list--
I am going to play the peace-maker here for a moment, is
there any possibility of negoiating a way out of this
because I dont feel that it:
Doubtful. The first thing you must understand is that the
FSF does
"David Grove" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Ben Tilly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"John van V" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, this the ~only~ obvious thing here. What I
just learned from the GNU/FSF/UWIN/MinGW issue is that
perl ~is~ legally
Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David Grove wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen, maybe licensing isn't the method of choice of
preventing the abuses that are harming this community, but it seems to
be
the appropriate place to affect at least one of the two:
What
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09.19 -0500 01.14.2001, Ben Tilly wrote:
That situation definitely had ActiveState violating the
spirit of the Artistic License, whether or not they were
violating the letter.
They violated neither the spirit nor the letter.
They were shipping
"John van V" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Tilly Wrote:
But as I have said before, I have no problems with 5.6.0
having been released when it was.
I work in a 16 trillion dollar settlement environment. 5.5.4/5.6 has
broken a lot of administrative tools.
Did you blindly r
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They were shipping something that they marketed as Perl, which behaved
differently than Perl, had been integrated into other projects, and for
which Larry Wall had little or no input.
Controling
"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:
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 origin
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
MY understanding after having talked to a number of licensing experts
about it in other places is that the GPL is both a copyright license and
I either was misinformed or misremembered a conversation
from last Fall. Sarathy pointed out to me that David
Grove not only was not working at ActiveState when 5.6.0
came out, Sarathy does not think that David was working
there when Sarathy came on board in 1998.
My apologies for having
"David Grove" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Ben Tilly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I either was misinformed or misremembered a conversation
from last Fall. Sarathy pointed out to me that David
Grove not only was not working at ActiveState when 5.6.0
came out, Sa
22 matches
Mail list logo
