"David Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Ben Tilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I either was misinformed or misremembered a conversation
> > from last Fall. Sarathy pointed out to me that David
> > Grove not only was not wo
I either was misinformed or misremembered a conversation
from last Fall. Sarathy pointed out to me that David
Grove not only was not working at ActiveState when 5.6.0
came out, Sarathy does not think that David was working
there when Sarathy came on board in 1998.
My apologies for having repeate
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > MY understanding after having talked to a number of licensing experts
> > about it in other places i
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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's a copyright license, j
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Could you point me at this policy? My understanding from
> > reading what Richard has written is that he would like it
> > if all software were GPLed and GPL on
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > They were shipping something that they marketed as Perl, which behaved
> > differently than Perl, had been integrated into other projects, and for
> > which
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Richard Stallman would *LOVE* it if Perl was placed under the GPL.
>
>I can't speak for RMS, but I know that the FSF would not necessarily "love"
"John van V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly Wrote:
> > But as I have said before, I have no problems with 5.6.0
> > having been released when it was.
>
>I work in a 16 trillion dollar settlement environment. 5.5.4/5.6 has
>broken a lot of adm
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>At 09.19 -0500 01.14.2001, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >That situation definitely had ActiveState violating the
> >spirit of the Artistic License, whether or not they were
> >violating the letter.
>
>They violated neither t
Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David Grove wrote:
>
> > Ladies and gentlemen, maybe licensing isn't the method of choice of
> > preventing the abuses that are harming this community, but it seems to
>be
> > the appropriate place to affect at least one of the two:
>
"David Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Ben Tilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "John van V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >Actually, this the ~only~ obvious thing here. What I
> > >ju
"John van V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The dual license is already such a compromise. What's wrong with the
>dual
> > licensing scheme?
>
>Ok, I'm learning here, please send me the link.
Ships with Perl. Perl is copyrighted and the copyright
holders say you can use their copyrighted cod
"John van V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>From the MinGW.Sourceforge.net list--
>
>I am going to play the peace-maker here for a moment, is
>there any possibility of negoiating a way out of this
>because I dont feel that it:
Doubtful. The first thing you must understand is that the
FSF
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 07:08 AM 9/26/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>>
>>> > Is it a conflict with the aims of Perl 6 in general that various
>>> > derivatives o
Philip Newton wrote:
>
>On 25 Sep 2000, at 10:03, Ben Tilly wrote:
>
> > I think David is confused about this situation, but what he
> > said is not entirely false. Anyone who wants can get Perl,
> > make changes under the GPL, and release the hacked up version
> &
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 6:02 -0400 2000.09.26, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >Dave Storrs wrote:
> >>
> >>Something that I am a little stuck on...here is my understanding of the
> >>way Perl is currently distributed and what it all means. I think I must
> >
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
>
> > Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >
> > [...] I'm seriously thinking of instituting an "All
> > >code
> > >submitted to the repository belongs to Larry" rule until we have thi
Dave Storrs wrote:
>
>Something that I am a little stuck on...here is my understanding of the
>way Perl is currently distributed and what it all means. I think I must
>be confused about something...could someone straighten me out?
>
>1) Works developed in Perl may be distributed under either the
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
[...] I'm seriously thinking of instituting an "All
>code
>submitted to the repository belongs to Larry" rule until we have this
>hashed out, so there's only one copyright holder to deal with.
We had that discussion. You would be asking for copyright
assignment, which would
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[...]
>>As soon as you get many implementations, you start to get into
>>the portability nightmare. We differ on how much of a problem
>>we think that is.
>
>Multiple implementations are good. All the languages that've had long-term
>viability have had multiple implementations
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
>On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 01:22:53PM -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
[...]
> > As soon as you get many implementations, you start to get into
> > the portability nightmare.
>
>Not at all! That's what the solid reference doc's for. Evidently we
&g
David Grove wrote:
>
> > Is there anything that stops me from taking my binary copy
> > of Perl from ActiveState, cutting it to CD, and handing it to
> > someone else? I thought not!
>
>You appear to be unfamiliar with ActiveState's license. It is specifically
>prohibited from being redistributed
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>At 12:28 PM 9/25/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>As long as Larry is really OK with giving away the store, I don't think
>>anyone
>>else should object.
>
>"Giving away the store", such as it is (and it really isn't) is,
&
ve enough time to give your concerns much
more attention. Not to mention the fact that I sincerely
believe the situation that bothers you does have a good
solution without being specifically addressed in Perl's
licensing.
Regards,
Ben Tilly
_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
David Grove wrote:
>
>On Monday, September 25, 2000 7:01 AM, Chris Nandor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>wrote:
> > At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
> > >Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
> > >should
> > >not be permitted in the future. It should be im
David Grove wrote:
>
> > Um, distribution under the GPL has to include offers of source.
> >
> > In fact the terms of the GPL are all designed to promote a very
> > specific philosophy that is counter to traditional commercial
> > practices!
>
>True, but it hasn't always happened.
People do not a
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 10:42 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >The original cannot be restricted. A derivative could be. My
> >understanding is that the intent of the AL is to keep there from
> >being a proprietary derivative named perl with restricted source.
>
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 10:03 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >Chris Nandor wrote:
[...]
> >I think David is confused about this situation, but what he
> >said is not entirely false. Anyone who wants can get Perl,
> >make changes under the GPL, and release
Chris Nandor wrote:
>At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
> >Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
>should
> >not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
> >entity, based on the GPL, to restrict the redistribution of Perl, w
Chris Nandor wrote:
>At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
> >Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
>should
> >not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
> >entity, based on the GPL, to restrict the redistribution of Perl, w
David Grove wrote:
>Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
>should
>not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a (corporate)
>entity, based on the GPL, to restrict the redistribution of Perl, which is
>a
>right seemingly granted by the AL. The co
We have mere days to get any final RFCs in.
Is there any significant objection to my proposing two?
1) Perl should switch to something like an MIT license
together with a trademark on Perl (likely with O'Reilly
requested to care of the details).
2) Continue dual-licensing GPL/AL with the
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>At 04:58 PM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>>At 11:01 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
[...]
>>How many versions can you find of diff, awk, sed, etc?
>
>Yeah, but isn't that supposed to be a good thing? :)
Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>In general, I think this new license is bit more convoluted then it needs
>to
>be. I proposal generally the following measures. I am editing it up
>today,
>and I will post a version of my proposal tommorrow.
I am waiting for this before trying to draw up any proposal
Garrett Goebel wrote:
>
>From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > At 05:18 PM 9/22/00 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
[...]
>It doesn't look like Larry'd have a good chance of trademarking "Perl"
>anyways. Then again, I don't know much about trademarks.
I think that you actually can have tr
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 11:01 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>>
>>>At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>>> THE ARTISTIC LICENSE
>>>> VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000
>>>
>&
Garrett Goebel wrote:
>
>From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > >Heh. One of my goals was to find a way to state what I thought
> > >was the core feeling of the Artistic License in a sound way.
> > >Saying that you are public domain is fine except that it invites
> > >every variant
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 11:01 -0400 2000.09.22, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski wrote:
[...]
> >>Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license:
> >>
> >>"The contents of this archive, except for packages in the ext/ dire
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>> THE ARTISTIC LICENSE
>> VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000
>
>Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license:
>
>"The contents of this
Ben Tilly wrote:
>OK, here is what I hope is the last draft of the AL before I
>send out an RFC. I will send humorous commentary around
>shortly.
OK, here is the "translation" as well. If people like it my
goal is to make the structure of the legalese a little easier.
OK, here is what I hope is the last draft of the AL before I
send out an RFC. I will send humorous commentary around
shortly.
Detail to note. If this holds up legally, it is a context-
sensitive license which is both incompatible with the GPL and
itself. If men cannot serve two masters who dis
Adam Turoff wrote:
>
>On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:26:17PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > I am curious if this applies to any Working Groups besides
>perl6-language.
>
>I don't see why not. We're nearing the 300 RFC mark, and most of
>the RFCs have yet to make it to v2. I don't think encouagin
(To the folks on the license-discuss list.) As you may know,
Perl is currently undergoing a rewrite. As part of this
rewrite licensing is being reviewed, and we are attempting
to come up with an Artistic License that is (*ahem*) on
somewhat better grounds than the current one. This is my
curren
Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>
>bkuhn wrote:
> > >law,
> > >and it isn't worth putting statements like this in licenses. They are
> > >unenforceable through copyright law, and thus
>
>Ben Tilly wrote:
>
> > I borrowed it from both the BSD and t
Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly wrote:
>
> > >I believe that is correct as well.
> >
> > Is subset really the word? Should I choose to accept and redistribute
> > using the AL, I should be able to distribute under any terms I choose
>that
&
Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Well I sat down, thought carefully about it, and reorganized
> >my proposed license along the same lines that I would organize
> >a config file. Instead of enumerating what is allowed, deny
>
I wrote:
>
>Well I sat down, thought carefully about it, and reorganized
>my proposed license along the same lines that I would organize
>a config file. Instead of enumerating what is allowed, deny
>this, deny that, deny the other, allow everything else. I
>think that this is a good way to rewri
Well I sat down, thought carefully about it, and reorganized
my proposed license along the same lines that I would organize
a config file. Instead of enumerating what is allowed, deny
this, deny that, deny the other, allow everything else. I
think that this is a good way to rewrite it.
It means
Perl contains two files which contain the infamous BSD
advertising clause. This means that Perl cannot technically
be distributed under the GPL. The files in question are:
ext/SDBM_File/sdbm/dbm.h
ext/SDBM_File/sdbm/dbm.c
Currently Perl's documentation is *NOT* in compliance with
this clau
The Perl6 RFC Librarian quoth:
>
>This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
>=head1 TITLE
>
>Perl6's License Should Be a Minor Bugfix of Perl5's License
[...]
This resolves very few of the IMHO rather serious issues I
have found with the current license. The
The Perl6 RFC Librarian quoth:
>
>This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
>=head1 TITLE
>
>The Artistic License Must Be Changed
[...]
Please add some reference to the fact that over the course of
Perl's history it was changed, and therefore there is now some
Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >You were claiming that you don't care what people do as
> >long as they were not calling it Perl. My point above
> >is that the only situation I am interested in involves
&
Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly wrote:
> > 4. The names of the contributers to this package may not be used to
> > endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific
> > prior written permission.
>
>Lawyers typically point out that this iss
Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >3. The current AL probably does not convey the above in terms
> >> > acceptable to lawyers and it is worth making it do so.
> >> >Can we all agree on these points?
> >>
Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > The Package must ALWAYS be distributed under the same licensing terms
>as
> > > the original. Unless it is public domain or you are the copyright
> > > holder, you cannot change the licensing ter
Go through a few versions of Perl and read the copy of the
Artistic License you see. It changes. There is simply no
way that Larry OKed each change with the copyright holders,
and so there is simply no way that he actually had the
authority to make those changes.
I noticed this when an old Debi
Ben Tilly wrote:
>
>OK, IANAL, nor do I pretend to any amazing expertise. Should
>this hold up legally, I will probably be the most astounded here.
>(I have not even reviewed for typos!) But at least it gives people
>something specific to argue over.
I would have been astounded w
OK, IANAL, nor do I pretend to any amazing expertise. Should
this hold up legally, I will probably be the most astounded here.
(I have not even reviewed for typos!) But at least it gives people
something specific to argue over.
I will annotate it later if I get time and energy. For now let
me n
Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly wrote:
>
> > My statement several times now is that I don't care what you do if you
> > don't call it perl, and I have even given examples (oraperl and perlex)
>of
> > people who did exactly that.
>
> > The onl
Ajit Deshpande wrote:
>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?
To explicitly allow any use of the code-base for Perl that
is not apparently intended to detract fr
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 9:27 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >You are clearly not reading closely. My statement several times
> >now is that I don't care what you do if you don't call it perl,
> >and I have even given examples (oraperl and perlex)
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 7:39 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >I proposed, and Tom Christiansen for one agreed, that the
> >point of allowing modifications that are made freely
> >available is that they are then available for Larry to
> >consider adding to
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 8:24 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >>And we also have statements of fact that some lawyers do find it
> >>acceptable. If you had said "some," I would have agreed. But I took
>your
> >>lack of quantifying mod
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 8:22 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >>I was going to disagree, but then I just decided I don't know what this
> >>means. What I don't understand is this thing about incorporating
>changes
> >>into the Standard Versi
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 6:21 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >I know some non-lawyers who could write a software license I
> >would trust. But I would not want to rely on a license
> >written by anyone who didn't not only know the above, but
> >who co
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 12:45 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >Chris Nandor wrote:
> >>
> >>At 11:40 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >> >1. Larry is in charge of Perl.
> >> >
> >> >2. Perl should be available under t
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 10:41 -0600 2000.09.11, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >I suggest that one explore the answer to this question:
> >
> >What does one wish to prohibit people from doing?
>
>That is an excellent question. Bradley Kuhn asked we hold off on more
>discussion until he can relea
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 12:22 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >> >2. Freely Available is too vague. Is it freely available if
> >> > I release my changes in a form with a copyright notice
> >> > saying (like Sun does) that you need to submit
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 20:04 -0700 2000.09.11, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> But my point is that I don't want a laywer actually writing the
>license.
> >> I would rather he give his input and opinions, and then others do the
> >> writing. I am far m
Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
>
>On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
>
>[...]
> > Sorry, I thought most would be familiar with this story.
>
>Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said as the usual "BSD-like
>licenses are evil, just see what Microsoft did with Kerbe
Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
>
>On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
>
>[...]
> > Because vagueness has led to being overly permissive.
> >
> > Take a look at how Microsoft "released" the changes that they
> > made to Kerebos.
>
>FUD, afaik. Micr
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
>I suggest that one explore the answer to this question:
>
> What does one wish to prohibit people from doing?
My answer matches my understanding of what you have said
in the past.
I wish to prohibit people from distributing something that
they call Perl which diffe
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 11:40 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >1. Larry is in charge of Perl.
> >
> >2. Perl should be available under terms agreeable with the
> > above statement.
> >
> >Two additional points come to mind as my opinions:
> &g
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>I have also included my reply to "Can we ignore licensing?" below.
>
>At 10:38 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >1. Rephrase it so that it is clearly a copyright notice with
> > an offered contract available for anyone who wishes to d
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> >> Here's what I like: *LARRY AND LARRY ALONE* gets to say what happens to
> >> that thing we call "perl".
>
> >The plan of this working group is to propose RFCs for Larry's later
>perusal
> >about what should happen with copyright and licensing of perl6.
>
>You misund
"Bradley M. Kuhn" wrote:
>Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > Surely there must be someone in the Perl community with either
> > intellectual property law experience or a willingness to chip in to a
>fund
> > to hire an intellectual property lawyer?
Define "Perl Community". I am currently trying to get K
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 9:29 -0400 2000.09.11, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >If I were to launch a challenge of the AL, the obvious target
> >is that it is a copyright statement that violates all sorts of
> >rules around fair use and so on.
>
>Such as? I won't
I don't think it needs it for Perl.
I think it needs it because it expresses something that many
people want to say, and so it is worth having it said well so
that people can say what they want to say and know it works.
The artistic license says, "You can do anything you want with
this so long a
78 matches
Mail list logo
