Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 22.39 -0500 01.14.2001, David Grove wrote:
> >I think that "charter" would be more palatable than "manifesto",
although
> >I won't lose the sentiment in semantics. I'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's hands are otherwise tied.
>
> 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 simply says, "Do whatever you want with this, we don't care
(especially if you're in bed with ORA)." All discussion is moot, working
with the wordings of the licenses is in vain unless it is sufficient to do
so only to please a small group of fanatics (lawyers don't count, because
we won't use them), and we simply have to tolerate the abuses currently in
place and likely those to come in the future. I can't imagine that you'd
find that situation acceptable, Chris, unless you have better ideas about
how to remedy them. (Continuing to sweep them under the rug doesn't
count.)
p
