On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:20:32AM -0500, Ken Williams wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas J. Koenig) wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:58:46 -0700 (PDT), Ask Bjoern Hansen
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > > What should we standardize on looking for? I would think looking
> > > for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas J. Koenig) wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:58:46 -0700 (PDT), Ask Bjoern Hansen
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > What should we standardize on looking for? I would think looking
> > for either of the two ways to include the license I described above
> > would
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:58:46 -0700 (PDT), Ask Bjoern Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>said:
> What should we standardize on looking for? I would think looking
> for either of the two ways to include the license I described above
> would work well. Comments?
We should adjust the CC list
On 22 Apr 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> I'm not asking anyone to do that. :) That's a lot of work. Personally,
> I think that if either the testers or the upload processing just checked
> for a license statement in some standard location (a LICENSE section in
> the POD text, a LICENSE fil
Elaine -HFB- Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
>> I believe that the legal liability of the archive maintainers is
>> precisely the same whether you ask for explicit license statements or
>> not. I pulled out and objected specifically to your previous s
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, for grins I looked to see how you license your modules. Your
> license/copyright statement is in the README, not the POD so after
> the module is installed, the license statement disappears [ unless
> the user keeps the source d
Well, for grins I looked to see how you license your modules. Your
license/copyright statement is in the README, not the POD so after the
module is installed, the license statement disappears [ unless the user
keeps the source dir around ]. The user, in the future will either need
Personally, I don't care if people use the GPL, AL, BSD or make up their
own... it is open source and it is not demo
or commercial-ware, etc.
I think you and I are talking at cross purposes--addressing two
different questions. This miscommunication has continued through
several mssa
Russ Allbery [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>
*>you're already worrying about. I'm just pointing out that if you believe
*>there is something in this archiving process that incurs legal liability,
*>being an ostrich about licensing isn't protecting you from it.
In the days of litigation and one-cli
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In certain cases, where you know the licenses of certain modules, you
> can put in explicit statements yourselves, following statements from the
> author. Otherwise, I suggest moving the problem modules outside of the
> public tree, and inviting the
Akim> Now the question is how will be install it? Do we try to get
Akim> into Perl's packaging system, or just have some pkglibdir and
Akim> install it in there? The same question will arise when we move
Akim> Language, Macro, Rule etc. out of automake.in.
What do we gain from trying to make it
Russ Allbery [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>
*>> Were we to get into the business of requiring licenses we would also
*>> have to do the task of checking for and possibly removing items that are
*>> of potential legal liability.
*>
*>You seem to be under the impression that not requiring license sta
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Akim> Now the question is how will be install it? Do we try to get
> Akim> into Perl's packaging system, or just have some pkglibdir and
> Akim> install it in there? The same question will arise when we move
> Akim> Language, Macro, Rule etc. out of auto
Narrowing the Cc line somewhat
Elaine -HFB- Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
>> You seem to be under the impression that not requiring license
>> statements somehow reduces your legal liability. I'm fairly certain
>> that this is not actually corr
On Apr 19, 2001, Elaine -HFB- Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still, however, strongly recommend good legal counsel to those whom the
> nuances of the license matter greatly since each situation is unique.
For a module without explicit licensing terms, I suppose the best a
lawyer could sa
Elaine -HFB- Ashton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I don't care if people use the GPL, AL, BSD or make up their
> own and call it the 'rooty tooty fresh and fruity' license which
> requires the user to eat at Denny's while using the module as long as it
> is an appropriate use of the m
What could we do to make 'unless stated otherwise, CPAN modules and
distributions are covered by the GPL and AL. When in doubt, email the
author.' more clear?
That is not what it actually says. Thanks to Akim, I now see
what it actually says:
http://www.cpan.org/misc/cpan-faq.
Russ Allbery [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>
*>> The important thing is that it should be stated clearly in CPAN what the
*>> license terms of each module on CPAN are.
*>
*>I agree that that would be desirable. CPAN is fairly loosely structured,
*>though, and there aren't a lot of pre-requisites th
*>Also, for the sake of eliminating doubt, I urge the maintainers of
*>CPAN to adopt a policy that each module must explicitly state its
*>license or licenses. Even if this is only applied for new and updated
*>modules, over time it would do a lot of good.
There is currently
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Yes. With rare exception, the Perl distribution is covered by both
> the Artistic License or the GPL, whichever is more appropriate for
> your needs and it doesn't sound like you would be in conflict with
> either of them."
> These
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 04:33:12PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> Tom> Do you think we should just rename the module? Or keep the name
> Tom> and add a configure test?
>
> I think the former is much easier.
>
> Now the question is how will be install it? Do we try to get into
> Perl's packagin
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> Akim, I'm satisfied that we're ok distributing our own
Tom> Class::Struct.
Good! I will catch up soon then.
Tom> Do you think we should just rename the module? Or keep the name
Tom> and add a configure test?
I think the former is muc
> "Richard" == Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> I was sent a bunch of previous messages, which did not make
Richard> it very clear who was saying what and why. I thought perhaps
Richard> those words were the statement used on CPAN itself to say
Richard> what the licenses
"Yes. With rare exception, the Perl distribution is covered by both the
Artistic License or the GPL, whichever is more appropriate for your needs
and it doesn't sound like you would be in conflict with either of them."
These are the words that were not clear--they say that exceptions
I removed cpan from the CC ilst.
rms> Does "no license changes" mean that the modified version is also
rms> released with notices saying "dual Artistic | GPL"? In that
rms> case, the situation seems perfectly explicit and clear.
Akim, I'm satisfied that we're ok distributing our own Class::Stru
Richard Stallman [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>
*>Does "no license changes" mean that the modified version is also
*>released with notices saying "dual Artistic | GPL"?
*>In that case, the situation seems perfectly explicit and clear.
Yes, and I'll quote from a message sent a week ago to the same
That I can answer: Dean Roehrich, then called Class::Template, license
Perl 5's dual Artistic/GPL (as it was contributed directly to Perl's
core as a standard module). Later renamed to Class::Struct and
modified by Jim Miner, then Damian Conway (the damian of the CC list),
the
Richard Stallman [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>
*>Someone pointed out that the statement of CPAN policy could be made
*>more explicit by changing a couple of words. If you are one of the
*>maintainers of CPAN, would you please raise the idea?
This has been on our FAQ for over a year now.
http://w
Richard Stallman [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>
*>Someone pointed out that the statement of CPAN policy could be made
*>more explicit by changing a couple of words. If you are one of the
*>maintainers of CPAN, would you please raise the idea?
This has been on our FAQ for over a year now.
http://w
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 10:58:11PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> We would like to have some advice from you about a license issue. In
> short, we would like to use a modified version of a Perl core module,
> which means we need it to be GPL.
>
> I don't understand the scenario cle
We would like to have some advice from you about a license issue. In
short, we would like to use a modified version of a Perl core module,
which means we need it to be GPL.
I don't understand the scenario clearly, so I don't know the answer.
Who initially wrote this module? What li
Unless specifically stated in the module itself, core modules are licensed
under the same terms as Perl itself, i.e. you may use either the GPL or
the AL, whichever suits your needs best.
Someone pointed out that the statement of CPAN policy could be made
more explicit by changing a c
Akim Demaille [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>
*>Hi!
*>
*>I would really like to have an answer on the following topic. I've
*>been stuck for 3 weeks because it is not clear whether its license is
*>GPL or not :(
*>
*>Thank you very much for any kind of answer!
Unless specifically stated in the mod
33 matches
Mail list logo
