Re: no one is asking for Perl to be GPL-only (was Re: licensingissues) by Chris Nandor- January 25, 2001 At 18:38 +0000 01.24.2001, John van V wrote:>> >For example, I&39;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&39;d be thrilled to know that the module works at all, and returns>useful data sometime this year...It does, and has for some time, so feel free to be thrilled. HTH.-- Chris Nandor ...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg352.html Re: no one is asking for Perl to be GPL-only (was Re: licensing issues) by John van V- January 24, 2001 > >For example, I&39;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&39;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 sw dmz is to get access..http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg351.html Re: Public Apology by David Grove- January 19, 2001 "Ben Tilly" <ben_tillyhotmail.com> wrote: > "David Grove" <petepetes-place.com> wrote: > > >This is correct. I left a few months after the release of 5.005. Asfor > >why Sarathy keeps insisting that we never worked there at the sametime, I > >have no idea. We did overlap as far as I know for about two or three > >months, but only spoke in a couple of brief emails. I don&39;t believethat > >it matters, and I know that it...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg350.html Re: Public Apology by Ben Tilly- January 19, 2001 "David Grove" <petepetes-place.com> wrote:>>"Ben Tilly" <ben_tillyhotmail.com> wrote:>> > I either was misinformed or misremembered a conversation> > from last Fall. Sarathy pointed out to me that David> > Grove not only was not working at ActiveState when 5.6.0> > came out, Sarathy does not think that David was working> > there when Sarathy came on board in 1998.> >> > My apologies for having repeated...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg349.html Re: Public Apology by David Grove- January 18, 2001 "Ben Tilly" <ben_tillyhotmail.com> wrote: > I either was misinformed or misremembered a conversation > from last Fall. Sarathy pointed out to me that David > Grove not only was not working at ActiveState when 5.6.0 > came out, Sarathy does not think that David was working > there when Sarathy came on board in 1998. > > My apologies for having repeated this misunderstanding > of mine in: > >...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg348.html Public Apology by Ben Tilly- January 18, 2001 I either was misinformed or misremembered a conversationfrom last Fall. Sarathy pointed out to me that DavidGrove not only was not working at ActiveState when 5.6.0came out, Sarathy does not think that David was workingthere when Sarathy came on board in 1998.My apologies for having repeated this misunderstandingof mine in:http:archive.develooper.comperl6-licenses%40perl.orgmsg00293.htmlBen_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg347.html Re: licensing issues by John van V- January 17, 2001 > I think it will be very hard to get Perl&39;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.http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg346.html Re: feedback and the license of Perl (was Re: licensing issues) by Chris Nandor- January 17, 2001 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&39;t a point in writing an RFC> that said: "perl&39;s license stays the same", because it was implicit. I> wasn&39;t clear that it was implicit. Have I misunderstoodLarry can do anything at all, regardless of the RFCs. He can...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg345.html feedback and the license of Perl (was Re: licensing issues) by Bradley M. Kuhn- January 16, 2001 bkuhn wrote:> > I don&39;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&39;s were due, the traffic on this list was> > basically dead, except for me posting revisions of RFCs. I hope that I> > properly caught the spirit of the consensus properly, but without> > feedback, that was a hard job.Russ Allbery <rrastanford.edu> wrote: > Yeah,.http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg344.html Re: Making sure "Perl" means "Perl" (was Re: licensing issues) by Ben Tilly- January 16, 2001 Russ Allbery <rrastanford.edu> wrote:>>Ben Tilly <ben_tillyhotmail.com> writes:> > "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhnebb.org> 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 contract.>> > For instance look at item 5. A copyright license is a license written> > by the copyright holder. There is no accepting or not...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg343.html |