Re: licensing issues

2001-01-14 Thread Russ Allbery
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

Re: licensing issues

2001-01-14 Thread Simon Cozens
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

Re: licensing issues

2001-01-14 Thread Ben Tilly
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

Re: licensing issues

2001-01-14 Thread Chris Nandor
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]

Re: licensing issues

2001-01-14 Thread Simon Cozens
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.

Re: licensing issues

2001-01-14 Thread Ben Tilly
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

Re: licensing issues

2001-01-14 Thread Chris Nandor
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.

Re: licensing issues

2001-01-14 Thread Simon Cozens
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 ...

Re: licensing issues

2001-01-14 Thread John van V
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.

Re: licensing issues

2001-01-14 Thread Dave Rolsky
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

Re: licensing issues

2001-01-14 Thread David Grove
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

Re: licensing issues

2001-01-14 Thread Ben Tilly
"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

Making sure Perl means Perl (was Re: licensing issues)

2001-01-14 Thread Bradley M. Kuhn
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

Re: Making sure Perl means Perl (was Re: licensing issues)

2001-01-14 Thread Ben Tilly
"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

Re: no one is asking for Perl to be GPL-only (was Re: licensing issues)

2001-01-14 Thread Russ Allbery
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