> >For example, I'd like to see CPAN.pm warn you if you are about to
> >install a module which will, licensing-wise, force you down a GPL-only
> >or AL-only fork when you use it in your programs.
Personally I'd be thrilled to know that the module works at all, and returns useful
data sometime t
> I think it will be very hard to get Perl's "spirit" into enforcable
legalese
> - but it may be worth trying.
Absolutely, a hard copy would be nicer than the present mash of emotional
core dumps.
At 20:04 -0500 01.16.2001, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>Related to this, though, I have a procedural question:
>
> Does anyone know if Larry is considering "leave it as it is" for all
> options on RFCs? Chris noted that there wasn't a point in writing an RFC
> that said: "perl's license stays th
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
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
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
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
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
"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 original A
"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
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Then there is no point in working with licenses at all. If licenses
will
> > not be enforced through litigation and our desires for the Perl
language
> > cannot be enforced through public censure,
>
> I be
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then there is no point in working with licenses at all. If licenses will
> not be enforced through litigation and our desires for the Perl language
> cannot be enforced through public censure,
I believe that the proposed (Artistic-2.0|GPL) license is inde
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the purpose of such a "charter" should be to inform rather than
> punish supposed offenders.
I agree. We want people to understand why the perl license is what it is,
and how it is ok for them to use it.
While lawyers tend to go right for the
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps we want a Perl Manifesto that lays out our base goals in plain
> English, separate from any licensing scheme.
FWIW, I tried to at least state the goals in plain English of the *Artistic
License only* in the Preamble of proposed AL-2.0. Of cour
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't know what has come of it, but there was a big discussion about
> changes to CPAN, including metadata about the modules, and if that ever
> happens/catches on, you just have a place in the metadata for what
> license(s) are used.
That's a very g
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad, are we trying to come to a conclusion or is this just babble?
My impression of the current discussion is that primarily people are
clarifying what RFCs were put in place, and what the impact will be.
Some of the discussion has been off-topic,
> "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The FSF surely wants Perl to be under a GPL compatible license (and,
> >(GPL|SOMETHING) is always GPL-compatible, by default). I don't think the
> >FSF has ever expressed a desire that Perl be GPL-only. In fact, the FSF
> >has
> >a policy of en
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 original AL.
I believe (IANAL) that End User License Agreemen
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree entirely, as you may already know. It is very clear on this
> point. The only significant business complaints I have _ever_ heard (from
> actual businesses) about the AL comes from said businesses' lawyers.
A business' legal team typically h
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please make sense if you are going to address me in the future, or
simply
> don't bother addressing me at all. Thanks,
Following the thread(s), in order for this working group to make sense,
there must be a reason to look at our licenses. We have fou
At 10:10 -0500 01.15.2001, David Grove wrote:
>> I think the purpose of such a "charter" should be to inform rather than
>> punish supposed offenders. To have suchg a wrong-headed motivation seems
>> to me to be asking for failure.
>
>Then there is no point in working with licenses at all. If lic
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 22.39 -0500 01.14.2001, David Grove wrote:
> >I think that "charter" would be more palatable than "manifesto",
although
> >I won't lose the sentiment in semantics. I've been thinking the same
> >thing, and agree entirely. Whereas the license could
At 22.39 -0500 01.14.2001, David Grove wrote:
>I think that "charter" would be more palatable than "manifesto", although
>I won't lose the sentiment in semantics. I've been thinking the same
>thing, and agree entirely. Whereas the license could use some tightening
>up to allow legal enforcement of
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You may have a good point here. Perhaps we want a Perl Manifesto that
> lays out our base goals in plain English, separate from any licensing
> scheme. At the least, it could serve as documentation for *why* Perl
is
> dual-licensed, since this keep
Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The FSF surely wants Perl to be under a GPL compatible license (and,
>> (GPL|SOMETHING) is always GPL-compatible, by default). I don't think
>> the FSF has ever expressed a desire that Perl be GPL-only. In f
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it is unfortunate that anyone would think someone else's choice
> of license is unfortunate. :)
While I'm with Linus on this (those who write the code get to choose the
license), I think it's incumbent on us, as the licensing working group, to
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm suggesting licensing only as a necessary first step. It's a document
> where we put on paper (or in bits and bytes) what the nature of our
> "spirit" is. Without this as a groundwork, there's very little to base
> further action and policy on.
Given
"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 t
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Richard Stallman would *LOVE* it if Perl was placed under the GPL.
>
>I can't speak for RMS, but I know that the FSF would not necessarily "love"
>for Perl to be GPL'ed.
>
>The FSF surely wants Perl to be un
Chris Nandor writes:
> Seeing as how the RFC process is done, I don't think there is a conclusion
> to be had in this forum, at this point.
And I have trouble seeing how watching you and Brad go back and forth
is going to do anything other than raise my blood pressure :-) Perhaps
it's time for of
At 15.32 -0700 01.14.2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Chris Nandor writes:
>> >(Indeed, it is quite unfortunate that there are so many modules on CPAN
>> >that have chosen Artistic-only or GPL-only.)
>>
>> I think it is unfortunate that anyone would think someone else's choice of
>> license is unfo
Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Stallman would *LOVE* it if Perl was placed under the GPL.
I can't speak for RMS, but I know that the FSF would not necessarily "love"
for Perl to be GPL'ed.
The FSF surely wants Perl to be under a GPL compatible license (and,
(GPL|SOMETHING) is al
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 this sort of behavior with a copyright license is very dif
Please, folks, discussions about whether or not 5.6.0 is stable, and whether
it goes into Debian, and whether or not companies have too much control of
Perl or perl are off-topic. Please keep the discussion to consider only
licensing issues for Perl6. If that discussion spawns off-topic
discus
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Absolutely. And this "status quo" argument is why I think that it is
> reasonable to keep the current licensing scheme; it has served Perl very,
> very well.
I think, in some cases, it has not served Perl as well as it might have.
Namely, because the Ar
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>All law in my country (the United States) is, in one way or another, based
>upon a single document, our Constitution. However, that document is based
>upon a previous document which is equally important, in that it expresses
>the nature of our "spirit", o
"Ben Tilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking personally the Perl 5.6.0 disaster (and I
> consider it no less) has made me a lot more cynical
> about Perl and willing to look at switching languages.
> I do not currently know whether I will make the Perl 5
> to Perl 6 transition...
I'd
"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 roll it ou
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:27:28AM -0500, Chris Nandor 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.
Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David Grove wrote:
>
> > 1. What if a company, ANY company, whether through collusion or by
any
> > other means, historically has had, currently has, or in the future
will
> > have, the ability to disregard the perl license mecha
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David Grove wrote:
> 1. What if a company, ANY company, whether through collusion or by any
> other means, historically has had, currently has, or in the future will
> have, the ability to disregard the perl license mechanism as it stands
> because of questionable "grammar",
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:43:36AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
> > No. It was to have Windows support built-in to the standard
> distribution.
>
> I see.
>
> I notice that you still haven't told me which part of clause three they
> actually kept.
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.
You do the math.
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:43:36AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
> No. It was to have Windows support built-in to the standard distribution.
I see.
I notice that you still haven't told me which part of clause three they
actually kept.
--
In this talk, I would like to speculate a little, on ... t
At 15.27 + 01.14.2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:27:28AM -0500, Chris Nandor 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 le
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 ship
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:27:28AM -0500, Chris Nandor 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
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.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http:/
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:
>
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 03:27:56AM +, David Grove wrote:
> However, maybe you can find out something for us. Specifically, why isn't
> Perl 5.6 a part of "official" Debian in this latest release, and 5.005_03
> still is?
simon@pembro26 ~/fonts % apt-cache show perl-5.6
Package: perl-5.6
Prior
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, maybe you can find out something for us. Specifically, why
> isn't Perl 5.6 a part of "official" Debian in this latest release, and
> 5.005_03 still is? Is Debian slow at getting this out, or is there a
> more obvious reason from the Perl end? (I
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 abuses? What the heck are you talking about?
I'll retract partially. The precise reference I had in mind was in fact on
the GNU site linked from Debian.org, my mistake, although I've definitely
seen overwhelming GNUism among Debians. Here is a quick question as I
asked it on UnderNET and got an immediate and definite response (I'm
eapoe):
u
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Grove) wrote on 12.01.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> tangent: {
> BTW, on debian.org, there's an essay that says that they are currently
> "using" the linux kernel until a totally GNU one is created. I've been
> doing some homework while watching these posts. (Which is al
At 12:05 AM -0800 1/13/01, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Perl, by the *explicit* intention of Larry, sits at a very nice crossroads
>between three active communities; those who use the GPL and agree with the
>general goals of the FSF, those who prefer software to be as free as
>possible and usually use the
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, on debian.org, there's an essay that says that they are currently
> "using" the linux kernel until a totally GNU one is created. I've been
> doing some homework while watching these posts. (Which is also why I now
> understand why I could never compl
> You know having you not have a clue who you are talking to
> is getting really annoying. Hello David, my name is Ben
> Tilly. I am the guy who flamed Tom Christiansen on p5p
[...]
> In any case if you want action on that it is better to
> start by saying that and not take threads that
"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 defined as an op
"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 defined as an operating system.
>
> Defined by who? I am curious her
"John van V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The dual license is already such a compromise. What's wrong with the
>dual
> > licensing scheme?
>
>Ok, I'm learning here, please send me the link.
Ships with Perl. Perl is copyrighted and the copyright
holders say you can use their copyrighted cod
> The dual license is already such a compromise. What's wrong with the dual
> licensing scheme?
Ok, I'm learning here, please send me the link.
> Well, this obviously isn't true in general since Perl is a project to
> create a programming language and GNU is a project to create an operating
John van V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [someone else]
>> Also, note that if we use a modified version of the GPL, it will likely
>> be incompatible with the real GPL, which will cause big licensing
>> problems.
> In a compomise, everybody gives a little, otherwise everybody suffers;
The dual
This whole issue is reminding of Randal's defense.
The jury was far too mystified to decide in his favor, only the judge understood the
arguement, hence no jail time ( for a 3 time felon ?? )
I think this thread started as a result of a desire to use GNU code in Perl6 where the
license would
John van V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was really amused to see RMS and Eric Raymond agree for the first time
> in history where Chinese Linux companies were pirating the OS.
I actually doubt RMS agreed that they were "pirating". I am sure he would
have used the word "copyright infringement"
Last year at the Open Source Expo in NY, I was really amused to see RMS and Eric
Raymond agree for the first time in history where Chinese
Linux companies were pirating the OS.
But how can you pirate free s/w ??? Makes no sense to the lay reader; in the end it
will be average people who supp
> Respectfully, as with the other
> issues, let's please give Larry his time at bat with the RFC as it stands
> rather than second guessing ourselves again redundantly after the fact.
very good, here's your lollipop ;)
At 0:59 -0500 2001.01.09, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> True, unless we stick to the same licensing scheme we have today for perl,
>> which, like it or not, has served Perl very, very well.
>
>As it turns out, this isn't an RFC under consideration by Larry, A
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:24:06PM +, David Grove wrote:
> > This was the subject of a list and an RFC. I'd hope not to see what we
> > worked hard to come up with not go to waste, guys and gals. We came up
> > with a "least of all evils" solution
[Snipped perl-internals, this is off topic there]
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not think that Bradley is suggesting that Perl would "go more GPL",
> because that would be indefensibly insane.
That is correct. Someone else did propose that, and it forked a tangent
about defens
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True, unless we stick to the same licensing scheme we have today for perl,
> which, like it or not, has served Perl very, very well.
As it turns out, this isn't an RFC under consideration by Larry, AFAIK. The
only RFC about licensing that went in was (
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:24:06PM +, David Grove wrote:
> This was the subject of a list and an RFC. I'd hope not to see what we
> worked hard to come up with not go to waste, guys and gals. We came up
> with a "least of all evils" solution, I think, and I feel very strongly
Where can this s
This was the subject of a list and an RFC. I'd hope not to see what we
worked hard to come up with not go to waste, guys and gals. We came up
with a "least of all evils" solution, I think, and I feel very strongly
that not protecting Perl from outright theft, especially using very iffy
licenses al
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:27:21PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Could you explain why do you think going more GPL would be a good thing
> for Perl?
I do not think that Bradley is suggesting that Perl would "go more GPL",
because that would be indefensibly insane. Bradley is proposing that
Could you explain why do you think going more GPL would be a good thing
for Perl? What things it would change compared with the current scheme?
What problems it would solve? Do you not think it would create new ones?
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People who are going to steal the source will do so regardless of the
> license on the source, and the people who are going to respect the license
> will do so regardless of which it is.
The license has to be sound, clear, and defendable legally---that m
At 15:32 -0500 2001.01.05, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>Honestly, the license we choose will only restrict those people who will
>respect it, either for moral or legal reasons. That's one reason to choose
>a license that places the fewest restrictions on those people, and the GPL
>is not that license.
Tr
At 08:18 PM 1/5/01 +, John van V wrote:
>I am supporting regular GNU licensing to relieve the pain I am hearing
>about in the commercial zone where folks are allegedly up to NG.
People who are going to steal the source will do so regardless of the
license on the source, and the people who
I am supporting regular GNU licensing to relieve the pain I am hearing about in the
commercial zone where folks are allegedly up to NG.
Also if we use the GNU license, then we dont have to worry about applications meant
for perl being written in some other less appropriate
language because of
78 matches
Mail list logo
