At 17.00 -0500 01.14.2001, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>I think, in some cases, it has not served Perl as well as it might have.
Yes, but it has still served it very well. Perhaps better than any other
"free" program out there. I concede it could be better, but simply assert
it has been served very, very well.
>Namely, because the Artistic license is unclear. The OSI and the Debian
>group only reluctantly and with many reservations accepted the Artistic
>license as an open source license. The FSF has been unable to accept it
>as a free software license, and some of these reasons are brought up in
>the various RFCs I wrote.
This is all for political reason, and I am not inclined to care about that.
>> If the AL can be changed to satsify some lawyers,
>
>It's not just lawyers. The changes I have proposed can help satisfy
>businesses, because it makes it more clear that they can charge money
>for redistributing perl. The current Artistic license is somewhat
>unclear on this issue.
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' lawyers.
>> while at the same time not becoming less readable (becoming more readable
>> would be better) and certainly not imposing any more of a burden on the
>> people who use it, then I am not opposed to it.
>
>Why do you feel the AL-2.0 that I proposed is less readable than the
>current one?
I did not say it was. I was speaking generally, not specifically. I
apologize for any confusion on the matter.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
