For everyone's sanity, I think if Chris and Ben would answer the
following questions, I think we can have more streamlined discussion:
1. What is the objective of the AL?
2. Should we (perl-developer-community) involve lawyers in the
discussion about whether the present wording of AL meets the objectives
stated in #1 above?
3. If answer to #2 is yes, then when should we do that? How many
lawyer-opinions would be enough? How do we decide which lawyer to use?
How do we do conflict resolution if two lawyers have differing opinions?
4. If answer to #2 is no, do you think that sometime in the foreseeable
future there could arise a situation where you will be displeased with
the way a Corporate entity or an Individual has
used/modified/distributed/renamed Perl and you wish to
challenge that and want arbitration by a mutually (between yourself and
the offending corporation or individual) agreed upon body?
5. If the answer to #4 is no, then do you think that your goals could
be met with the BSD-style licenses and you do not have any practical need
of the AL?
6. (This maybe a redundant question wrt AL) Distinguish between the spirits
of the BSD-style v/s AL licenses in your opinion.
Ajit
