Re: no one is asking for Perl to be GPL-only (was Re: licensing issues) by Bradley M. Kuhn- January 15, 2001 Chris Nandor <pudgepobox.com> wrote:> > I don&39;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> happenscatches on, you just have a place in the metadata for what> license(s) are used.That&39;s a very good idea; one that I was actually planning to bring up atthis years&39; p5p meeting---but instead we launched Perl6, and that made myCPAN licensing points seemed like a tangential...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg332.html Re: no one is asking for Perl to be GPL-only (was Re: licensing issues) by Bradley M. Kuhn- January 15, 2001 Nathan Torkington <gnatfrii.com> wrote:> Brad, are we trying to come to a conclusion or is this just babbleMy impression of the current discussion is that primarily people areclarifying 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 aboutwhy the RFCs were written as they were, then it&39;s worth discussing it.-- Bradley M. Kuhn - http:www.ebb.orgbkuhnhttp://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg331.html Re: no one is asking for Perl to be GPL-only (was Re: licensing issues) by Bradley M. Kuhn- January 15, 2001 > "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhnebb.org> wrote:> >The FSF surely wants Perl to be under a GPL compatible license (and,> >(GPLSOMETHING) is always GPL-compatible, by default). I don&39;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 (GPLArtistic) > >for> >Perl modules, to encourage uniformity, and avoid licensing confusion for>...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg330.html Re: Making sure "Perl" means "Perl" (was Re: licensing issues) by Bradley M. Kuhn- January 15, 2001 Ben Tilly <ben_tillyhotmail.com> 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&39;s a copyright license, just like both theproposed AL-2.0 and the original AL.I believe (IANAL) that End User License Agreements can be contracts,particularly under UCITA, but I don&39;t think that&39;s a direction we want to goin with a license for Perl.> This, of course, presupposes that the legal system is...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg329.html Re: Why modifing the Artistic license is a good idea (was Re: licensing issues) by Bradley M. Kuhn- January 15, 2001 Chris Nandor <pudgepobox.com> 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&39; lawyers.A business&39; legal team typically has the final say whether or not a piece ofsoftware gets used. Pleasing them is a worthwhile goal for the success ofPerl.Many of them aren&39;t comfortable with the GPL, so it&39;s key that.http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg328.html Re: licensing issues by David Grove- January 15, 2001 Chris Nandor <pudgepobox.com> wrote: > Please make sense if you are going to address me in the future, orsimply > don&39;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 found reasons.In order to change our licensing schemes, there must be something wrongwith the current. Some time ago, it was proposed that there&39;s nothingwrong with the current, and that was thrown.http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg327.html Re: licensing issues by Chris Nandor- January 15, 2001 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 licenses will>not be enforced through litigation and our desires for the Perl language>cannot be enforced through public censure, we might as well have a license>that.http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg326.html Re: licensing issues by David Grove- January 15, 2001 Chris Nandor <pudgepobox.com> wrote: > At 22.39 -0500 01.14.2001, David Grove wrote: > >I think that "charter" would be more palatable than "manifesto",although > >I won&39;t lose the sentiment in semantics. I&39;ve been thinking the same > >thing, and agree entirely. Whereas the license could use sometightening > >up to allow legal enforcement of rights and restrictions, such acharter > >could allow for public censure to serve the same.http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg325.html Re: licensing issues by Chris Nandor- January 15, 2001 At 22.39 -0500 01.14.2001, David Grove wrote:>I think that "charter" would be more palatable than "manifesto", although>I won&39;t lose the sentiment in semantics. I&39;ve been thinking the same>thing, and agree entirely. Whereas the license could use some tightening>up to allow legal enforcement of rights and restrictions, such a charter>could allow for public censure to serve the same purpose as seeking legal>remedy when Larry&39;s hands are otherwise...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg324.html Re: no one is asking for Perl to be GPL-only (was Re: licensingissues) by Chris Nandor- January 15, 2001 At 19.55 -0800 01.14.2001, Russ Allbery wrote:>Chris Nandor <pudgepobox.com> writes:>>> I think it is unfortunate that anyone would think someone else&39;s choice>> of license is unfortunate. :)>>While I&39;m with Linus on this (those who write the code get to choose the>license), I think it&39;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...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.licenses/2001/01/msg323.html |