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

[John van V]

> >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 this year... 
but anyway, I am beginning to feel that the CPAN issues are superflous to perl6 
licensing.

The whole reason to meet Richard and the FSF in the free s/w dmz is to get access to 
modules or code snippets already written and tested in 
our sister languages, Ruby, Python and Blackdown.  KSH is soon to be open source, the 
TCL stuff may be applicable.  Scheme and Lisp come 
to mind as well.  KSH would do well to create packages themselves, if they want to 
keep challanging perl :).

My impression of some of the internals list talk is that each of the above could be 
fed to the same VM and that that VM could be ours, only it 
would be a second version of Perl6, the first would run Perl code exclusively so as to 
get a solid product out the door sometime soon.

he GPL is the least common denomiator out there and the comment about perl on GNU's 
"other licenses" page doesnt trash it outright, just asks 
for clarification, in a sarcastic way tho.

The distance between the GPL and AL seems to be whether modifications to Perl code 
would be proprietary or not.  You can release proprietary 
code compiled w/ GCC.

It would then seem that the modules grafted from GPL sources would have to be 
re-written by whomever wants to leave the GPL, and they would 
have to specify AL w/ their products.

John

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

[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 GNU's main license page,
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html.  To quote it:
>
>   The license of perl.
>   [...]
>   We recommend you use this license for any Perl package you write, to
>   promote coherence and uniformity in Perl programming.
>
>
Thank you.  I was pointed at this by someone else
as well.
>
[...]

Cheers,
Ben
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

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 good idea; one that I was actually planning to bring up at
this years' p5p meeting---but instead we launched Perl6, and that made my
CPAN licensing points seemed like a tangential issue.  ;)

We, as the Licensing WG, probably should to write a proposal for how CPAN to
handle this.  It can likely wait until the first RFC process is done, but we
should decided for sure before Perl6 starts shipping.

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.

Also, someone might have to use a completely different license for other
reasons.  For example, some modules are MPL-only because they are XS
interfaces to MPL-only systems.  We should flag people about that.

(In fact, I don't even know that the MPL is compatible with the AL, so it
 may not be feasible to install such a module at all...we'll need to find
 that out.)

This is why I wrote an RFC that says, basically: "The Licensing Working
Group should live as long as Perl6 does".  We need to face these issues as
they come up.  There are far too many free software and open source licenses
for this problem to be easy to solve.

I hope the RFC to continue the life of this group will be accepted.

-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn  -  http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn

 PGP signature

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

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

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, but if people are unclear about
why the RFCs were written as they were, then it's worth discussing it.

-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn  -  http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn

 PGP signature

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

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

> "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 encouraging everyone to always dual-licensing (GPL|Artistic) 
> >for
> >Perl modules, to encourage uniformity, and avoid licensing confusion for
> >those who use lots of Perl modules.
 
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 GNU's main license page,
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html.  To quote it:

  The license of perl.
  [...]
  We recommend you use this license for any Perl package you write, to
  promote coherence and uniformity in Perl programming.



> Indeed the OSI would like it clarified as well partly because it is widely
> used.  In fact item 1 of the OSD (which you can find at
> http://www.opensource.org/osd.html) was carefully written to avoid
> conflicting with item 5 of the Artistic License.  I have seen Bruce Perens
> comment that it would be nice to tighten that item up.

Yes, IIRC, I believe I included references to these items in the RFC.

-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn  -  http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn

 PGP signature

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

[Russ Allbery]

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 fact,
>> the FSF has a policy of encouraging everyone to always dual-licensing
>> (GPL|Artistic) for Perl modules, to encourage uniformity, and avoid
>> licensing confusion for those who use lots of Perl modules.

> Could you point me at this policy?



-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 

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

[Russ Allbery]

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
be aware that choices of licenses have consequences and sometimes those
consequences can be obscure or unintended.  I'd like it if everyone
choosing a license did so with full knowledge of the possible consequences
(and then, once they are, they should feel free to chose whatever license
they want).

Licensing a module solely under the Artistic License or solely under the
GPL has practical consequences.  It may be impossible to include that
module into Perl's core unless the license is changed (which can be
difficult).  The license may interfere with code from that module being
borrowed by other Perl programmers for other Perl projects if they want to
use the dual-licensing scheme themselves.  For some purposes, it would be
nice to be able to distribute CPAN or a subset of it under a single clear
license (although there's enough diversity now that this would require a
lot of work to do).

Sure, if people are aware of all of those issues and have decided that
their goals are more important to them than those drawbacks, more power to
them and they should be able to use whatever license they want.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 

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

[Ben Tilly]

"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 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 encouraging everyone to always dual-licensing (GPL|Artistic) 
>for
>Perl modules, to encourage uniformity, and avoid licensing confusion for
>those who use lots of Perl modules.

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.  (In fact he does
not like LGPL to be used except where necessary.)

>(Indeed, it is quite unfortunate that there are so many modules on CPAN 
>that
>have chosen Artistic-only or GPL-only.)
>
>Of course, the FSF and many others would like to see the Artistic license
>clarified, so that it is definitely a free software license, and so that it
>is completely clear that businesses who want to redistribute Perl for 
>profit
>can do so unfettered.  I wrote an RFC to propose such corrections to the
>Artistic license.  We'll have to wait and see what Larry says about it.
>
Indeed the OSI would like it clarified as well partly
because it is widely used.  In fact item 1 of the OSD
(which you can find at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html)
was carefully written to avoid conflicting with item
5 of the Artistic License.  I have seen Bruce Perens
comment that it would be nice to tighten that item up.

That would not directly affect Perl because Perl would
still be free software under the OSD.  However there is
a real possibility of conflict for modules that are
Artistic only.  (Particuarly if Debian followed suit.)

Cheers,
Ben
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

[Nathan Torkington]

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 off-list email.

Nat

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

[Chris Nandor]

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 unfortunate.  :)
>
>I can't even remember the topic we're supposed to be discussing, but
>I'm pretty sure that this would begin a tangent :-)
>
>Brad, are we trying to come to a conclusion or is this just babble?

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.

-- 
Chris Nandor  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/