Re: subsets of licenses and copyright holders (was Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite)

Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > >Ben Tilly wrote: > > > >I believe that is correct as well. > > > > Is subset really the word? Should I choose to accept and redistribute > > using the AL, I should be able to distribute under any terms I choose >that > > are consistent with the distribution requirements

Re: subsets of licenses and copyright holders (was Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite)

> Bradley M . Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >I don't think this is completely out the question, either. I was actually > >planning on writing an RFC that proposes that all contributions to the core > >be copyright assigned to Larry. Nick Ing-Simmons wrote: > Well if that becomes a require

Re: subsets of licenses and copyright holders (was Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite)

Ben Tilly wrote: > >I believe that is correct as well. > > Is subset really the word? Should I choose to accept and redistribute > using the AL, I should be able to distribute under any terms I choose that > are consistent with the distribution requirements of the AL. This may > include adding

subsets of licenses and copyright holders (was Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite)

Bradley M . Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >I don't think this is completely out the question, either. I was actually >planning on writing an RFC that proposes that all contributions to the core >be copyright assigned to Larry. Well if that becomes a requirement I will have to stop contribu

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >You were claiming that you don't care what people do as >long as they were not calling it Perl. My point above >is that the only situation I am interested in involves >people distributing what they call Perl. > >You are clearly not even trying to respond t

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Nick Ing-Simmons wrote: > >Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >You were claiming that you don't care what people do as > >long as they were not calling it Perl. My point above > >is that the only situation I am interested in involves > >people distributing what they call Perl. > > > >You

Re: subsets of licenses and copyright holders (was Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite)

Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > >Russ Allbery wrote: > > Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > The Package must ALWAYS be distributed under the same licensing terms >as > > > the original. Unless it is public domain or you are the copyright > > > holder, you cannot change the licensing ter

subsets of licenses and copyright holders (was Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite)

Russ Allbery wrote: > Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The Package must ALWAYS be distributed under the same licensing terms as > > the original. Unless it is public domain or you are the copyright > > holder, you cannot change the licensing terms. > > Not true, as far as I know.

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you are going to contact the Copyright Holder under the provisions of > sections 3d and 4d, it would only be in reference to the Package as a > whole, for which the stated Copyright Holder has complete authority to > rule. If you don't like it, you s

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The Package must ALWAYS be distributed under the same licensing terms as > the original. Unless it is public domain or you are the copyright > holder, you cannot change the licensing terms. Not true, as far as I know. I believe that in general, you ca

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > >Ben Tilly wrote: > > > My statement several times now is that I don't care what you do if you > > don't call it perl, and I have even given examples (oraperl and perlex) >of > > people who did exactly that. > > > The only concern is if you call it perl (embrace), it is

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Ajit Deshpande wrote: >For everyone's sanity, I think if Chris and Ben would answer the >following questions, I think we can have more streamlined discussion: > >1. What is the objective of the AL? To explicitly allow any use of the code-base for Perl that is not apparently intended to detract fr

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

For everyone's sanity, I think if Chris and Ben would answer the following questions, I think we can have more streamlined discussion: 1. What is the objective of the AL? 2. Should we (perl-developer-community) involve lawyers in the discussion about whether the present wording of AL meets the o

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Ben Tilly wrote: > My statement several times now is that I don't care what you do if you > don't call it perl, and I have even given examples (oraperl and perlex) of > people who did exactly that. > The only concern is if you call it perl (embrace), it is not perl > (extend), and your goal is

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

At 10:48 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: >>Please don't misrepresent Tom. >> >I am representing my understanding of what Tom said. All Tom said is "I agree," basically. And what you said in that post differs from what you said in the one I was responding to, because in the former you were add

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

At 10:59 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: >Chris Nandor wrote: >> >>At 9:27 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: >> >You are clearly not reading closely. My statement several times >> >now is that I don't care what you do if you don't call it perl, >> >and I have even given examples (oraperl and

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Chris Nandor wrote: > >At 9:27 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: > >You are clearly not reading closely. My statement several times > >now is that I don't care what you do if you don't call it perl, > >and I have even given examples (oraperl and perlex) of people > >who did exactly that. > >

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Chris Nandor wrote: > >At 7:39 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: > >I proposed, and Tom Christiansen for one agreed, that the > >point of allowing modifications that are made freely > >available is that they are then available for Larry to > >consider adding to the standard version. I don't thin

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

At 9:27 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: >You are clearly not reading closely. My statement several times >now is that I don't care what you do if you don't call it perl, >and I have even given examples (oraperl and perlex) of people >who did exactly that. print "I don't get it ...\n" if "p

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 ar

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 to embrace and extend, I wa

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 relea

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

At 7:39 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: >I proposed, and Tom Christiansen for one agreed, that the >point of allowing modifications that are made freely >available is that they are then available for Larry to >consider adding to the standard version. I don't think that >the current language ha

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 b

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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? (Under the definiti

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 RFCs tomorrow. I will p

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 religio

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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". - ask -- ask bjoern hansen - mo

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Ask Bjoern Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote: >> Take a look at how Microsoft "released" the changes that they made to >> Kerebos. > FUD, afaik. Microsoft reimplemented Kerberos, they didn't change any > software. Correct. Furthermore, since Kerberos is

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: > >On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote: > >[...] > > Because vagueness has led to being overly permissive. > > > > Take a look at how Microsoft "released" the changes that they > > made to Kerebos. > >FUD, afaik. Microsoft reimplemented Kerberos, they didn't change any >s

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote: [...] > Because vagueness has led to being overly permissive. > > Take a look at how Microsoft "released" the changes that they > made to Kerebos. FUD, afaik. Microsoft reimplemented Kerberos, they didn't change any software. If they had it would probabl

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

>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

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Tom Christiansen wrote: > >I suggest that one explore the answer to this question: > > What does one wish to prohibit people from doing? My answer matches my understanding of what you have said in the past. I wish to prohibit people from distributing something that they call Perl which diffe

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

I suggest that one explore the answer to this question: What does one wish to prohibit people from doing? --tom

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Chris Nandor wrote: > >I have also included my reply to "Can we ignore licensing?" below. > >At 10:38 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote: > >1. Rephrase it so that it is clearly a copyright notice with > > an offered contract available for anyone who wishes to do > > things normally restricted

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

I have also included my reply to "Can we ignore licensing?" below. At 10:38 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote: >1. Rephrase it so that it is clearly a copyright notice with > an offered contract available for anyone who wishes to do > things normally restricted by copyright. Like the GPL. W

I think the AL needs a rewrite

I don't think it needs it for Perl. I think it needs it because it expresses something that many people want to say, and so it is worth having it said well so that people can say what they want to say and know it works. The artistic license says, "You can do anything you want with this so long a