Re: licensing issues

2001-01-16 Thread Russ Allbery
Bradley M Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't know if the Preamble I wrote if perfect, because I got very > little feedback on it, and all the RFCs this group submitted. Those > last two weeks before RFC's were due, the traffic on this list was > basically dead, except for me posting revi

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

2001-01-16 Thread Russ Allbery
Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the >> proposed AL-2.0 and the original AL. > MY understanding after having talked to a number of licensing experts > about it in other plac

Re: The "Do what you want" license and enforceability (was Re: licensing issues)

2001-01-16 Thread Russ Allbery
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Satisfying Stillman might be good enough for the FSF and ODSN and GNU, > but that's quite insubstantial and superficial. (It's Stallman; I wouldn't say anything, but I've seen that twice now.) Note that Stallman is already satisfied with the license on

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

2001-01-16 Thread Ben Tilly
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 > > a contr

feedback and the license of Perl (was Re: licensing issues)

2001-01-16 Thread Bradley M. Kuhn
bkuhn wrote: > > I don't know if the Preamble I wrote if perfect, because I got very > > little feedback on it, and all the RFCs this group submitted. Those > > last two weeks before RFC's were due, the traffic on this list was > > basically dead, except for me posting revisions of RFCs. I hope