On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 03:27:56AM +, David Grove wrote:
However, maybe you can find out something for us. Specifically, why isn't
Perl 5.6 a part of "official" Debian in this latest release, and 5.005_03
still is?
simon@pembro26 ~/fonts % apt-cache show perl-5.6
Package: perl-5.6
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:27:28AM -0500, Chris Nandor 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.
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:43:36AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
No. It was to have Windows support built-in to the standard distribution.
I see.
I notice that you still haven't told me which part of clause three they
actually kept.
--
In this talk, I would like to speculate a little, on ...
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 08:13:27PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
A Trademark on Perl Should be Acquired in Larry Wall's Name
I thought one of the objects of the Perl 6 exercise was to make Perl
bus-proof. Why don't we assign the trademark, and the code copyrights,
to Yet Another Society?
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 12:27:31PM -0500, David Grove wrote:
I've voiced my objections and given complete and concrete evidence and
examples of why this should not happen. I think that's enough.
I think that's enough, too. So, you'll be shutting up now, then?
--
God Save the Queen!
And let
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 01:52:26PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
That's a good idea. I wish you'd have mentioned it while the RFC could
still be changed. :)
Shouldn't be a problem; we don't have to stop having ideas now October first
is past, I hope.
--
There seems no plan because it is
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
