> >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
"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
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]> 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
"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
11 matches
Mail list logo
