>No, it is absolutely not patently false. It's entirely accurate. Perhaps
>you've missed what the FSF says about the Artistic License (used by
>itself), an opinion that I've heard is backed up by their legal counsel:
> The Artistic license.
> We cannot say that this is a free software lic
>That is the opinion of the FSF (and their legal counsel, who I'm not
>inclined to trust anyway),
Gee, Christ, whyever wouldn't you be quick to trust the word of
someone with the temerity to claim that where we've previously used
the word "encumbered", we must now instead use the word "free"?
Af
>Like it or not, we do have to deal with the law.
I see no evidence of that.
--tom
>In more of an attempt to be constructive, what if we identify the key
>aspects to the AL that people like and then, for Perl 6, find legal
>counsel to review and help draft a precise legal license with those key
>features?
Here's what I like: *LARRY AND LARRY ALONE* gets to say what happens to
t
>The AL is not known to be legally a free software license
^
I was unaware that the Courts had ever defined that term, nor that
they had adjudged it applicable to *any* licence that's out there.
If you know otherwise, please explain.
I'm
>> Here's what I like: *LARRY AND LARRY ALONE* gets to say what happens to
>> that thing we call "perl".
>The plan of this working group is to propose RFCs for Larry's later perusal
>about what should happen with copyright and licensing of perl6.
You misunderstand. I was talking something else
I suggest that one explore the answer to this question:
What does one wish to prohibit people from doing?
--tom
>Does that suffice and match your opinion?
Yes, it does. But I wasn't looking for confirmation of my own opinion,
but the development of others'.
--tom
