David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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? Is Debian slow at getting this out, or is there a
more obvious reason from the Perl end? (I'm
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
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
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.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
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
At 15.27 + 01.14.2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
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.
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 ...
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.
You do the math.
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 as it stands
because of questionable "grammar", or
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 as
"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 roll it out?
There
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 this sort of behavior with a copyright license is very
"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 this sort of
Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"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
15 matches
Mail list logo