I'll retract partially. The precise reference I had in mind was in fact on
the GNU site linked from Debian.org, my mistake, although I've definitely
seen overwhelming GNUism among Debians. Here is a quick question as I
asked it on UnderNET and got an immediate and definite response (I'm
eapoe):
u
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:
What abuses? What the heck are you talking about?
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, maybe you can find out something for us. Specifically, why
> isn't Perl 5.6 a part of "official" Debian in this latest release, and
> 5.005_03 still is? Is Debian slow at getting this out, or is there a
> more obvious reason from the Perl end? (I
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>However, maybe you can find out something for us. Specifically, why isn't
>Perl 5.6 a part of "official" Debian in this latest release, and 5.005_03
>still is?
Have you considered that it might be a purely technical issue?
5.6.0 has serious snags with O
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 03:27:56AM +, David Grove wrote:
> However, maybe you can find out something for us. Specifically, why isn't
> Perl 5.6 a part of "official" Debian in this latest release, and 5.005_03
> still is?
simon@pembro26 ~/fonts % apt-cache show perl-5.6
Package: perl-5.6
Prior
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:
>
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 the spirit nor the letter.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http:/
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:27:28AM -0500, Chris Nandor 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 the spirit nor the
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 the spirit nor the letter.
They were ship
At 15.27 + 01.14.2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:27:28AM -0500, Chris Nandor 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 le
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:43:36AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
> No. It was to have Windows support built-in to the standard distribution.
I see.
I notice that you still haven't told me which part of clause three they
actually kept.
--
In this talk, I would like to speculate a little, on ... t
At 06:42 PM 1/13/01 -0800, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
>How is setting one SV from another going to be implemented?
>My (admittedly vague) recollection was that it would be
>something like
>
>void sv_setsv(SV* dest, SV* src)
>{
>dest->sv_vtbl->delete(dest); /* clear the old value */
>dest->sv_vt
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 administrative tools.
You do the math.
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:43:36AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
> > No. It was to have Windows support built-in to the standard
> distribution.
>
> I see.
>
> I notice that you still haven't told me which part of clause three they
> actually kept.
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David Grove wrote:
> 1. What if a company, ANY company, whether through collusion or by any
> other means, historically has had, currently has, or in the future will
> have, the ability to disregard the perl license mechanism as it stands
> because of questionable "grammar",
Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David Grove wrote:
>
> > 1. What if a company, ANY company, whether through collusion or by
any
> > other means, historically has had, currently has, or in the future
will
> > have, the ability to disregard the perl license mecha
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:27:28AM -0500, Chris Nandor 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.
"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 administrative tools.
Did you blindly roll it ou
"Ben Tilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking personally the Perl 5.6.0 disaster (and I
> consider it no less) has made me a lot more cynical
> about Perl and willing to look at switching languages.
> I do not currently know whether I will make the Perl 5
> to Perl 6 transition...
I'd
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>All law in my country (the United States) is, in one way or another, based
>upon a single document, our Constitution. However, that document is based
>upon a previous document which is equally important, in that it expresses
>the nature of our "spirit", o
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Absolutely. And this "status quo" argument is why I think that it is
> reasonable to keep the current licensing scheme; it has served Perl very,
> very well.
I think, in some cases, it has not served Perl as well as it might have.
Namely, because the Ar
Please, folks, discussions about whether or not 5.6.0 is stable, and whether
it goes into Debian, and whether or not companies have too much control of
Perl or perl are off-topic. Please keep the discussion to consider only
licensing issues for Perl6. If that discussion spawns off-topic
discus
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 Larry Wall had little or no input.
Controling this sort of behavior with a copyright license is very dif
At 17.00 -0500 01.14.2001, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>I think, in some cases, it has not served Perl as well as it might have.
Yes, but it has still served it very well. Perhaps better than any other
"free" program out there. I concede it could be better, but simply assert
it has been served very,
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"
for Perl to be GPL'ed.
The FSF surely wants Perl to be under a GPL compatible license (and,
(GPL|SOMETHING) is al
At 17.19 -0500 01.14.2001, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>The FSF surely wants Perl to be under a GPL compatible license (and,
>(GPL|SOMETHING) is always GPL-compatible, by default). I don't think
>the FSF has ever expressed a desire that Perl be GPL-only. In fact, the
>FSF has a policy of encouraging
At 15.32 -0700 01.14.2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Chris Nandor writes:
>> >(Indeed, it is quite unfortunate that there are so many modules on CPAN
>> >that have chosen Artistic-only or GPL-only.)
>>
>> I think it is unfortunate that anyone would think someone else's choice of
>> license is unfo
Chris Nandor writes:
> >(Indeed, it is quite unfortunate that there are so many modules on CPAN
> >that have chosen Artistic-only or GPL-only.)
>
> I think it is unfortunate that anyone would think someone else's choice of
> license is unfortunate. :)
I can't even remember the topic we're suppo
Chris Nandor writes:
> Seeing as how the RFC process is done, I don't think there is a conclusion
> to be had in this forum, at this point.
And I have trouble seeing how watching you and Brad go back and forth
is going to do anything other than raise my blood pressure :-) Perhaps
it's time for of
"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"
>for Perl to be GPL'ed.
>
>The FSF surely wants Perl to be un
"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 Larry Wall had little or no input.
>
>Controling t
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm suggesting licensing only as a necessary first step. It's a document
> where we put on paper (or in bits and bytes) what the nature of our
> "spirit" is. Without this as a groundwork, there's very little to base
> further action and policy on.
Given
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it is unfortunate that anyone would think someone else's choice
> of license is unfortunate. :)
While I'm with Linus on this (those who write the code get to choose the
license), I think it's incumbent on us, as the licensing working group, to
Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The FSF surely wants Perl to be under a GPL compatible license (and,
>> (GPL|SOMETHING) is always GPL-compatible, by default). I don't think
>> the FSF has ever expressed a desire that Perl be GPL-only. In f
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You may have a good point here. Perhaps we want a Perl Manifesto that
> lays out our base goals in plain English, separate from any licensing
> scheme. At the least, it could serve as documentation for *why* Perl
is
> dual-licensed, since this keep
35 matches
Mail list logo
