Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Friday 07 July 2006 18:39, Andy Lester wrote:
Those who disagree with Shlomi on licenses are small-headed and
ignorant. Got it.
Keep digging that hole, Mr. Fish!
That's not what I said or meant. What I meant was that someone here said and I
quote:
http://www.mail-ar
From my interpretation, what he said was "I don't care to understand licenses
enough so I don't want to be bothere with it." Now I think this is a rather
small-minded approach to this issue, which I think is very bad. Perhaps, the
response to Ovid about it instead of this message was not appropr
Folks should read the fascinating document which is the LEGAL file
which comes with the Ruby source code.
http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ruby/LEGAL?rev=1.12.2.2;content-type=text%2Fplain
The Ruby source contains not one, not two, but SIXTEEN different
licences including the "Beer-War
On 7/7/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I DO NOT WANT TO RELICENSE YOUR CODE.
It is a huge maintenance burden.
It creates confusion for developers, who need to decide which version to
patch.
It creates confusion for users, who need to decide which version to use.
You can't reuse patch
On Friday 07 July 2006 08:56, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Shlomi, you are NOT reading or comprehending what people say here.
Please stop and think about what I write until you understand it before you
respond.
> What I wanted to say is that people should have the
> minimal knowledge to understand that M
On Friday 07 July 2006 18:39, Andy Lester wrote:
> Those who disagree with Shlomi on licenses are small-headed and
> ignorant. Got it.
>
> Keep digging that hole, Mr. Fish!
>
That's not what I said or meant. What I meant was that someone here said and I
quote:
http://www.mail-archive.com/perl-q
Those who disagree with Shlomi on licenses are small-headed and
ignorant. Got it.
Keep digging that hole, Mr. Fish!
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
Hi Chris!
On Friday 07 July 2006 17:04, Chris Dolan wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > This kind of attitude was also said by another responder to this
> > mailing list.
> > It's sort of a "small headed" (see
> > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2004/12/06.html ) "I jus
On Jul 7, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
This kind of attitude was also said by another responder to this
mailing list.
It's sort of a "small headed" (see
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2004/12/06.html ) "I just want
to write
code and am not interested in any legal details" attit
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:57:42PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 July 2006 23:02, Shlomi Fish n wrote:
>
> > I don't see using the X11 licence for my software as anti-social. Like I
> > said, anyone can easily fork it as a software of a different licence.
>
> Supposing you actually fi
Hi Ovid!
On Friday 07 July 2006 12:30, Ovid wrote:
> - Original Message
> From: Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Not exactly. I suggested that if anyone is interested in working on
> > Test::Run, he can file a proposal for a grant saying he'd like to work on
> > it with me as a mento
On Jul 7, 2006, at 4:30 AM, Ovid wrote:
I oversee the grant committee but I don't speak for it so it's
quite possible that what I say is wrong, but I'm willing to bet money
If you do not include a bet amount, the bet will not be approved.
Typical bets are generally in the $500 to $3000 rang
- Original Message
From: Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Not exactly. I suggested that if anyone is interested in working on
> Test::Run,
> he can file a proposal for a grant saying he'd like to work on it with me as
> a mentor. I still don't have anyone who can work on it. This is
Shlomi Fish n wrote:
I don't see using the X11 licence for my software as anti-social. Like I said,
But it is. You are forcing people to spend some of their precious time
to understand the ramifications of this different license, and consider
the differences between it and the GPL and AL.
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 23:02, Shlomi Fish n wrote:
> I don't see using the X11 licence for my software as anti-social. Like I
> said, anyone can easily fork it as a software of a different licence.
Supposing you actually find a mentee and TPF actually does fund this project
and this code is s
On Thursday 06 July 2006 00:36, Jonathan T. Rockway wrote:
> Two comments, pretty much agreeing with chromatic and Ricardo:
>
> 1) How would this proposed module benefit the perl community? Why
> can't you fix things in Test::Harness and send the patch in? If you fix
> deployed modules, everyone
On 7/5/06, Jonathan T. Rockway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) How would this proposed module benefit the perl community? Why
can't you fix things in Test::Harness and send the patch in? If you fix
deployed modules, everyone wins. If you write your own module, it sits
on CPAN unused.
What exac
On Jul 5, 2006, at 5:26 PM, chromatic wrote:
If you
cannot or will not work with the community, don't be surprised when
the
community has little interest in working with you.
Please also LISTEN to what we're saying. A thread w/Shlomi typically
has responses from Shlomi that rebut the co
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 23:55, chromatic wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 July 2006 12:28, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > I'd like to suggest a generic proposal for the Perl Foundation Grants.
> > Note that I'm not going to take it myself, because I just started a new
> > job and would like to commit to it. Howe
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 15:02, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Test::Run is licence-compatible with the core.
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
> Some of Test::Run is
> licensed under the GPL and Artistic (version 1.0) licence which is the
> licence of the perl 5 core. The other
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 23:51, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
> * Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-05T15:28:28]
>
> > The grant is about Test::Run, which is a fork of Test::Harness that aims
> > to greatly refactor and modularise it. I've already revamped and
> > re-written a lot of code for it, b
On Jul 5, 2006, at 3:55 PM, chromatic wrote:
You want TPF to pay some unspecifed and unidentified other person
to continue
a fork of a core module that can't ever replace the core module
because of
its licensing?
But at least he'll act as mentor.
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => ww
Two comments, pretty much agreeing with chromatic and Ricardo:
1) How would this proposed module benefit the perl community? Why
can't you fix things in Test::Harness and send the patch in? If you fix
deployed modules, everyone wins. If you write your own module, it sits
on CPAN unused.
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 14:04, Andy Lester wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2006, at 3:55 PM, chromatic wrote:
> > You want TPF to pay some unspecifed and unidentified other person
> > to continue a fork of a core module that can't ever replace the core
> > module because of its licensing?
> But at least he
* Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-05T15:28:28]
> The grant is about Test::Run, which is a fork of Test::Harness that aims to
> greatly refactor and modularise it. I've already revamped and re-written a
> lot of code for it, but there's still a lot that needs to be done.
[...]
> Some o
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 12:28, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> I'd like to suggest a generic proposal for the Perl Foundation Grants. Note
> that I'm not going to take it myself, because I just started a new job and
> would like to commit to it. However, I can be the mentor for this grant.
> I'm posting it
Hi all!
I'd like to suggest a generic proposal for the Perl Foundation Grants. Note
that I'm not going to take it myself, because I just started a new job and
would like to commit to it. However, I can be the mentor for this grant. I'm
posting it here to get some reactions before I put it in my
27 matches
Mail list logo
