Re: subsets of licenses and copyright holders (was Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite)

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 > > are consistent with the distribution requirements

Re: subsets of licenses and copyright holders (was Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite)

> Bradley M . Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >I don't think this is completely out the question, either. I was actually > >planning on writing an RFC that proposes that all contributions to the core > >be copyright assigned to Larry. Nick Ing-Simmons wrote: > Well if that becomes a require

Re: subsets of licenses and copyright holders (was Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite)

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 > are consistent with the distribution requirements of the AL. This may > include adding

subsets of licenses and copyright holders (was Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite)

Bradley M . Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >I don't think this is completely out the question, either. I was actually >planning on writing an RFC that proposes that all contributions to the core >be copyright assigned to Larry. Well if that becomes a requirement I will have to stop contribu

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 >people distributing what they call Perl. > >You are clearly not even trying to respond t

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 > >people distributing what they call Perl. > > > >You

Re: subsets of licenses and copyright holders (was Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite)

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

subsets of licenses and copyright holders (was Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite)

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 terms. > > Not true, as far as I know.

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you are going to contact the Copyright Holder under the provisions of > sections 3d and 4d, it would only be in reference to the Package as a > whole, for which the stated Copyright Holder has complete authority to > rule. If you don't like it, you s

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 terms. Not true, as far as I know. I believe that in general, you ca

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 only concern is if you call it perl (embrace), it is

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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? 2. Should we (perl-developer-community) involve lawyers in the discussion about whether the present wording of AL meets the o

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 only concern is if you call it perl (embrace), it is not perl > (extend), and your goal is

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

At 10:48 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: >>Please don't misrepresent Tom. >> >I am representing my understanding of what Tom said. All Tom said is "I agree," basically. And what you said in that post differs from what you said in the one I was responding to, because in the former you were add

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

At 10:59 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote: >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

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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) of people > >who did exactly that. > >

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 the standard version. I don't thin

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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) of people >who did exactly that. print "I don't get it ...\n" if "p

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 Version. Why does it matter? > > > >Because if you ar

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 Version. Why does it matter? > >Because if you are going to embrace and extend, I wa

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 the standard version. I don't think that >the current language ha

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 all of your > >> > changes to my changes b

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 all of your >> > changes to my changes back to me? (Under the definiti

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 release some RFCs tomorrow. I will p

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 Kerberos". > Ah, sorry. No, I am not religio

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 Kerberos". - ask -- ask bjoern hansen - mo

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

Ask Bjoern Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote: >> Take a look at how Microsoft "released" the changes that they made to >> Kerebos. > FUD, afaik. Microsoft reimplemented Kerberos, they didn't change any > software. Correct. Furthermore, since Kerberos is

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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. Microsoft reimplemented Kerberos, they didn't change any >s

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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. Microsoft reimplemented Kerberos, they didn't change any software. If they had it would probabl

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

>Does that suffice and match your opinion? Yes, it does. But I wasn't looking for confirmation of my own opinion, but the development of others'. --tom

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

I suggest that one explore the answer to this question: What does one wish to prohibit people from doing? --tom

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 do > > things normally restricted

Re: I think the AL needs a rewrite

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 do > things normally restricted by copyright. Like the GPL. W