ActivePerl License (was Re: RFC idea)

2000-10-03 Thread Jan Dubois
Now that the RFCs have been frozen and things look a bit calmer I would like to take the chance to clear up a few misconceptions about the ActivePerl license: On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 19:38:35 +0200, "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25 Sep 2000, at 13:05, Ben Tilly wrote: Is there

Re: RFC idea

2000-09-30 Thread Bradley M. Kuhn
[Grabbing an old thread...] Ben Tilly wrote: My understanding is that the intent of the AL is to keep there from being a proprietary derivative named perl with restricted source. (If it is not named perl then that is explicitly allowed.) I believe my draft of the Artistic License does

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 Chris Nandor
At 10:03 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote: 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

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
David Grove wrote: On Monday, September 25, 2000 9:16 AM, Chris Nandor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Yes, but no one can restrict the redistribution of Perl (or perl). You can, perhaps (though I am not entirely convinced), restrict the distribution of some specific distribution, but

RE: RFC idea

2000-09-25 Thread David Grove
Is there anything that stops me from taking my binary copy of Perl from ActiveState, cutting it to CD, and handing it to someone else? I thought not! You appear to be unfamiliar with ActiveState's license. It is specifically prohibited from being redistributed without permission, from Perl

RE: RFC idea

2000-09-25 Thread David Grove
This is the nightmare of JavaScript. This is one of the reasons that I prefer Perl over Java. This is...you know my opinion. But I recognize the benefit as well. I don't think it is a *bad* choice, but I think it is a choice to be made with open eyes and recognition of the tradeoffs.

RE: RFC idea

2000-09-24 Thread David Grove
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 is a right seemingly granted by the AL. The conbination of the GPL's