Giving talks at YAPC is a no brainer, and I see the criteria of creating public
documents and the existance of a deadline being exceeding good
things.
Documenting the knowlege and preventing the authors from obfuscating the documents (by
accident, of course) will generate far to much noise f
John van V writes:
> If perl.org is unacceptable for some reason I can easily create a
> mailing list on puny.vm.org
Thanks for the offer, but I don't think we'll need it. I think we're
hampered right now by the fact that we don't know much about what
perl6 is going to look like. Until we get m
At 02:39 PM 1/12/01 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>John van V writes:
> > If perl.org is unacceptable for some reason I can easily create a
> > mailing list on puny.vm.org
>
>Thanks for the offer, but I don't think we'll need it. I think we're
>hampered right now by the fact that we don't know
> 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.
> Well, this obviously isn't true in general since Perl is a project to
> create a programming language and GNU is a project to create an operating
"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
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:11:56PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Barring anyone else doing it, I should go to YAPC and talk about perl 6's
> guts, at least the bits available at that point. TPC too. ('Course, there's
> the question of getting there, but that's a separate issue)
Well, if you can'
"Ben Tilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "John van V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Actually, this the ~only~ obvious thing here. What I
> >just learned from the GNU/FSF/UWIN/MinGW issue is that
> >perl ~is~ legally defined as an operating system.
>
> Defined by who? I am curious her
"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
> > >just learned from the GNU/FSF/UWIN/MinGW issue is that
> > >perl ~is~ legally defined as an op
> You know having you not have a clue who you are talking to
> is getting really annoying. Hello David, my name is Ben
> Tilly. I am the guy who flamed Tom Christiansen on p5p
[...]
> In any case if you want action on that it is better to
> start by saying that and not take threads that
I've got one ready to go on the topic of "Perl 6: the story so far".
I'm presenting it next week at linux.conf.au and would be happy to
submit it for YAPC and/or TPC.
K.
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, on debian.org, there's an essay that says that they are currently
> "using" the linux kernel until a totally GNU one is created. I've been
> doing some homework while watching these posts. (Which is also why I now
> understand why I could never compl
11 matches
Mail list logo
