"Ben Tilly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"David Grove" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is correct. I left a few months after the release of 5.005. As
for
why Sarathy keeps insisting that we never worked there at the same
time, I
have no idea. We did overlap as far as
"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, Sarathy does not think that David was working
there when Sa
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 t
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
Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David Grove wrote:
1. What if a company, ANY company, whether through collusion or by
any
other means, historically has had, currently has, or in the future
will
have, the ability to disregard the perl license mechanism
"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 defined as an operating system.
Defined by who? I am curious here.
I believe,
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Liceses. Bletch.
Don't blame the licenses, blame the copyright law that makes them an
unfortunate necessity in many cases.
And the thieves who steal the intellectual property and claim it as their
own turf in the first place.
What are we talking
On Friday, October 06, 2000 9:16 AM, Simon Cozens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 08:53:30AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
1. The corporation doesn't exist yet except as a draft, and when it
does, there is
2. nothing on that site or the links from it that seems to have
On Friday, October 06, 2000 11:23 AM, Simon Cozens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 10:50:06AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
I don't know it's affiliations
You know that word "independent"? Should have been a give-away, but...
but I _seem_ to recall (su
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
Is there anything that stops me from taking my binary copy
of Perl from ActiveState, cutting it to CD, and handing it to
someone else? I thought not!
You appear to be unfamiliar with ActiveState's license. It is specifically
prohibited from being redistributed without permission, from Perl
This is the nightmare of JavaScript. This is one of the reasons
that I prefer Perl over Java. This is...you know my opinion.
But I recognize the benefit as well. I don't think it is a
*bad* choice, but I think it is a choice to be made with open eyes
and recognition of the tradeoffs.
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 is a
right seemingly granted by the AL. The conbination of the GPL's
13 matches
Mail list logo
