Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

2000-09-11 Thread Ben Tilly
Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote: [...] Sorry, I thought most would be familiar with this story. Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said as the usual "BSD-like licenses are evil, just see what Microsoft did with Kerberos". Ah, sorry. No, I am not relig

Re: An attempt to be constructive

2000-09-12 Thread Ben Tilly
Chris Nandor wrote: At 20:04 -0700 2000.09.11, Russ Allbery wrote: Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But my point is that I don't want a laywer actually writing the license. I would rather he give his input and opinions, and then others do the writing. I am far more interested in

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

2000-09-12 Thread Ben Tilly
Chris Nandor wrote: At 12:22 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote: 2. Freely Available is too vague. Is it freely available if I release my changes in a form with a copyright notice saying (like Sun does) that you need to submit all of your changes to my changes back to me

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

2000-09-12 Thread Ben Tilly
Chris Nandor wrote: At 10:41 -0600 2000.09.11, Tom Christiansen wrote: I suggest that one explore the answer to this question: What does one wish to prohibit people from doing? That is an excellent question. Bradley Kuhn asked we hold off on more discussion until he can release some

Re: An attempt to be constructive

2000-09-12 Thread Ben Tilly
Chris Nandor wrote: At 6:21 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: I know some non-lawyers who could write a software license I would trust. But I would not want to rely on a license written by anyone who didn't not only know the above, but who could not cite chapter and verse what those issues

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

2000-09-12 Thread Ben Tilly
Chris Nandor wrote: At 8:22 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: I was going to disagree, but then I just decided I don't know what this means. What I don't understand is this thing about incorporating changes into the Standard Version. Why does it matter? Because if you are going

Re: An attempt to be constructive

2000-09-12 Thread Ben Tilly
Chris Nandor wrote: At 8:24 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: And we also have statements of fact that some lawyers do find it acceptable. If you had said "some," I would have agreed. But I took your lack of quantifying modifier to be a statement that all, or even most, la

Re: RFC 219 (v1) Perl6's License Should Be a Minor Bugfix of Perl5's License

2000-09-13 Thread Ben Tilly
The Perl6 RFC Librarian quoth: This and other RFCs are available on the web at http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ =head1 TITLE Perl6's License Should Be a Minor Bugfix of Perl5's License [...] This resolves very few of the IMHO rather serious issues I have found with the current license. The Perl

A new AL, take 2

2000-09-13 Thread Ben Tilly
Well I sat down, thought carefully about it, and reorganized my proposed license along the same lines that I would organize a config file. Instead of enumerating what is allowed, deny this, deny that, deny the other, allow everything else. I think that this is a good way to rewrite it. It

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

2000-09-22 Thread Ben Tilly
Ben Tilly wrote: OK, here is what I hope is the last draft of the AL before I send out an RFC. I will send humorous commentary around shortly. OK, here is the "translation" as well. If people like it my goal is to make the structure of the legalese a little easier. One comment I hav

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

2000-09-22 Thread Ben Tilly
Dan Sugalski wrote: At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote: THE ARTISTIC LICENSE VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000 Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license: "The contents of this archive, except for packages in the ext/ dire

Re: Hopefully last draft of AL

2000-09-22 Thread Ben Tilly
Chris Nandor wrote: At 11:01 -0400 2000.09.22, Ben Tilly wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: [...] Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license: "The contents of this archive, except for packages in the ext/ directory explicitly marked otherwise, are placed into the p

RE: RFC idea

2000-09-25 Thread Ben Tilly
Chris Nandor wrote: At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote: 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

RE: RFC idea

2000-09-25 Thread Ben Tilly
Chris Nandor wrote: At 10:03 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote: Chris Nandor wrote: [...] I think David is confused about this situation, but what he said is not entirely false. Anyone who wants can get Perl, make changes under the GPL, and release the hacked up version under the GPL. You

RE: RFC idea

2000-09-25 Thread Ben Tilly
David Grove wrote: Um, distribution under the GPL has to include offers of source. In fact the terms of the GPL are all designed to promote a very specific philosophy that is counter to traditional commercial practices! True, but it hasn't always happened. People do not always meet

RE: RFC idea

2000-09-25 Thread Ben Tilly
David Grove wrote: On Monday, September 25, 2000 7:01 AM, Chris Nandor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote: 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

RE: RFC idea

2000-09-25 Thread Ben Tilly
t due to an external deadline, we probably don't have enough time to give your concerns much more attention. Not to mention the fact that I sincerely believe the situation that bothers you does have a good solution without being specifically addressed in Perl's licensing.

Re: ATT / UWIN in violation of GNU/FSF wrt to GCC

2001-01-10 Thread Ben Tilly
"John van V" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From the MinGW.Sourceforge.net list-- I am going to play the peace-maker here for a moment, is there any possibility of negoiating a way out of this because I dont feel that it: Doubtful. The first thing you must understand is that the FSF does

Re: licensing issues

2001-01-12 Thread Ben Tilly
"David Grove" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "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

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 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 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 r

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

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

2001-01-15 Thread Ben Tilly
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you point me at this policy? My understanding from reading what Richard has written is that he would like it if all software were GPLed and GPL only. GNU's policy on Perl licensing is on

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

2001-01-15 Thread Ben Tilly
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still think a copyright that offers a contract (ie the same structure as the GPL) can do it. The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the proposed AL-2.0 and the origin

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

Public Apology

2001-01-18 Thread Ben Tilly
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 Sarathy came on board in 1998. My apologies for having

Re: Public Apology

2001-01-19 Thread Ben Tilly
"David Grove" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "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, Sa