oding-perl-fu.
Anyway, I hope that's a reasonable outline. Well, even if it isn't I think
I've probably babbled enough.
Ben
[0] Basically, I think of the whole Kwalitee thing as a solution to the
problem: A perl newbie, who knows how to program in another language /
environment (
On Oct 6, 1:28 pm, nore...@github.com wrote:
> Branch: refs/heads/master
> Home: http://github.com/perl6/specs
>
> Commit: cb8c8487fa0ab7156fecffdc8a52bf75d4290c1b
> http://github.com/perl6/specs/commit/cb8c8487fa0ab7156fecffdc8a52bf75...
> Author: Carl Masak
> Date: 2010-10-06 (Wed, 06 Oct
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
ionalized ;-)
>
>Actually, it looks like O'Reilly and ActiveState are the defacto Perl
>Institute.
>
>If Larry is happy the O'Reilly's integrity and use of the Camel Logo...
>Could we not release
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
> &
> > Yup, FSF has found that it is in violation of GPL to distribute GCC
> > linked with U/WIN runtime. I'll be removing all of it when I get back
> > from vacation later this week, with a note explaining why for the
> > benefit of the users.
> >
[...]
Cheers,
Be
;cc: list :)
You can compile proprietary software with gcc. While you
might have distribution problems with gcc itself, you should
be able to compile and sell things with it.
>That is what I am trying to discover in this thread.
>
>Any hoo, licensing by design is a high noise / low signal
>topic. I was ~not~ my idea I wish I was as good at coding
>as activist politics :)
Good luck,
Ben
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
"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
ic but not totally convinced.
Were I to only take into account what David has said in
private to me, I would be convinced. But I hate ever
making my mind up after only hearing one side of the
story. Clearly while working there someth
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
"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
"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"
"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:
> > 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:
>
> > 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
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
repeated this misunderstanding
of mine in:
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-licenses%40perl.org/msg00293.html
Ben
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
"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
g, notably that your application
is probably written in the wrong language.
> I suppose you could consider a source filter, but I couldn't recommend
> that.
I'd make a slightly stronger statement than that: If you were congenitally
insane, wilfully stupid or drunk, you could consider a source filter for this.
Ben
ld be damnably time-consuming to create those
> tests. Consequently, I've not bothered. I throw data at it, and look
> at the results. If the results are good I then put an md5 hash of the
> image into a regression test.
Strawman.
A graphing library is an obvious example where functional testing should be
used prior to automated regression testing.
Ben
howcasing differences between Perl 5 and Perl 6),
> all of these formats are not suitable.
This may be a stupid suggestion, but would it not be possible to
create some minimal set of extensions to pod which will do what we need?
Preferably something rst-like?
Ben
--
If you put all the proph
I have been getting the same error on my laptop for several weeks also.
Slackware 10.1, 2.4.26, Intel Celeron 1066.
On 8/8/06, hugues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi exotical birds,
I'm getting the following error when compiling (trying to) parrot
svn:
Just droping it as is, in case any of you
Yes.
I also completely redownloaded the entire trunk and got the same thing.
I'm supposed to set up vsoni an account on my laptop so he can have a
looksee but I haven't gotten around tuit yet.
On 8/8/06, Mr. Shawn H. Corey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben. B. wrote:
> I ha
I am going to try fixing it by deleting the installed version of
parrot per Kiwi's advice. That sounds like a reasonable solution. I'll
know for sure when I get home and post the results to the list.
Ben
On 8/8/06, hugues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> &
'link_debug' => '',
'link_dynamic' => '-Wl,-E',
'linkflags' => ' -L/usr/local/lib -Wl,-E',
'ncilib_link_extra' => '',
$ grep rpath lib/Parrot/Config/Generated.pm
my @X := @W;# @X =:= @W
my @Y = @W;# @Y === @W but @Y !=:= @W
my @Z = @W.clone; # @Z eqv @W but @Z !=== @W
? This seems like a useful set of distinctions to me...
Ben
--
The cosmos, at best, is like a rubbish heap scattered at random.
Heraclitus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
say [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>@numbers[ 0 ..^ prompt "Reverse how many? " ] .= reverse;
>++$steps;
> }
>
> say "Done! That took you $steps steps.";
Can I just say: I've never written a line of Perl6, and I love it
already :).
Ben
--
I've
ove *all* Unixisms from Perl (unlink, flock,
fork, and all the signal stuff spring to mind; a case could be made for
the filetest ops as well). I think that that level of culture- and
history-loss would be a real shame; I can see however that others may
think it more important to make Perl more plat
y can be used as executables directly?
Parrot would need an option analogous to gcc's -x, of course, to specify
to type of a file explicitly rather than inferring it from the
extension; but IMHO that also would be a good thing in itself.
Ben
--
You poor take courage, you rich take care:
T
s
for the code
package Test;
sub apply {
my $func = shift;
$func->(shift) while @_;
}
package Foo;
use vars qw/$line/; # can't use our as that also creates a lexical :(
$line = 0;
my $func = sub {
print $line++
mpty list.
Would using [[]] instead work? This is (at least to me) nicely visually
indicative of 'build a list of lists'. It is a little punctuation-heavy,
of course; though we could always allow "\x{27E6}\x{27E7}" as an
alternative :).
Ben
--
Alt
scade effect is precisely why you *should*
drop 5.004 compatability. There's no excuse other than "if it ain't broke,
don't fix it" for running such an archaic Perl. People should be encouraged
to move to a more modern environment whenever possible.
Ben
ently One True Way outlook to those
type of design discussions is unlikely to be productive.
I'm a little ray of sunshine today. It's not that I think Agile methods don't
work, but for a methodology that has so much to say about project Scope, I
think some discussion of the scope of applicability of the methods might
be worthwhile.
Ben
to change the case, you have to decode it (specifying the
encoding) into a text string, and case-change that.
Ben
--
For the last month, a large number of PSNs in the Arpa[Inter-]net have been
reporting symptoms of congestion ... These reports have been accompanied by an
increasing number
I wrote a small sum type module that subclasses
Perl6::Metamodel::SubsetHOW. I was thinking of naming it either
Type::Sum or Metamodel::SumHOW, but Type::Sum doesn't follow the style
Rakudo uses for naming MOP classes, and Metamodel::SumHOW may not be a
good name because it'd leak the module in
libkvm allows you to arbitrarily read/write memory (whether or not this
is allowed depends on the OS and its configuration), get metadata about
processes and files, get system load, and get kernel symbol information.
Would it be useful to have bindings for this?
On second thought, libkvm differs too much between OSes for this to be
possible to write portably.
On 2019-05-09 8:17 p.m., Ben Davies wrote:
> libkvm allows you to arbitrarily read/write memory (whether or not this
> is allowed depends on the OS and its configuration), get metadata
Net::Telnet is just about ready for release v0.0.1 now. Since it's on
the most wanted modules list, I figured someone out there needs it and
knows how the protocol works.
Currently, the library supports the TRANSMIT_BINARY, SGA, ECHO, and NAWS
options. I'm planning on gradually adding support f
It looks like you're trying to create an alias for a type. I'd use a
constant for this, not a subset, for reasons Brad has already explained.
Your code runs fine for me when DEF is written like my constant DEF = ABC.
On 2021-01-19 2:18 p.m., Brian Duggan wrote:
Hi Folks,
I ran into this situation today, which seems counterintuitive:
my @one = 1,2,3;
my @two = 4,5,6;
my @both = @one,@two;
my @first = @both[0];
say @one.raku;
say @first.raku;
output:
[1, 2, 3]
[[1, 2, 3],]
I was
where V is the number of sites of some
lattice. "Very nearly all" of them are pathological special cases, though.
Such models are quite common in simulation, but only a newbie would
approach them in a manner where that number actually appeared. I'd
agree with all of the above - come up with some vaguely sensible limit
and make it clear in the documentation what the limit is.
Ben
mplies that that special treatment isn't available
> to types added at runtime.
If we are actually going to be able to support more than one
high-level language, I'd say this was pretty much essential.
[ Not meaning to open a can of worms, but: ]
Has anyone implemented a mapping into Parrot from anything which isn't
Perl yet?
Ben
find yet another lawyer to volunteer to help (and/or
>pay
>one out of their own pocket), a second opinion is always useful.
>
I am hoping that Karsten will be able to offer some suggestions
on the second volunteer.
Cheers,
Ben
___
who did
not modify or redistribute. (No disclaimer of warranty?)
8) I wouldn't mind seeing public performance explicitly
allowed. Just so I cannot say that no free software license
that I know of addresses it. :-)
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
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
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
#x27;s ability to control the definition of what people
think of as Perl.
I don't care if people charge for Perl as long as they do
not claim it is their work they are charging for.
Does that suffice and match your opinion?
Thanks,
Ben
___
about it. But
if Perl again winds up the target of something we do not like,
and the entity doing that is not agreeable, it would be nice to
have a license we know we can trust...
Cheers,
Ben
_
Get Your Private, Free E-ma
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 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 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 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
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
ht
I will cross-post to the opensource list which contains a number
of lawyers.
[snippity]
Cheers,
Ben
_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourse
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
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
new licensing if they did not
object in the designated time period, yet avoids any
requirement to assign copyright to someone else.
This kind of term *would* have kept the changes to the AL from
leading to the problem I just described in the current license.
Cheers,
Ben
dissect.
Cheers,
Ben
---
THE ARTISTIC LICENSE
VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000
Preamble
The intent of this document is to enable you to use, distribute, modify,
and borrow from
thout paperwork... Before I push that idea further I
really need feedback on whether this is going to fly, both
legally and in terms of what it requires from contributers.
Suggestions on what kind of defined policy would make sense
are also welcome. :-)
Cheers
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:
> >
> >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
&
that Larry would want
to make any more controversial licensing changes than he has to,
the overall effect should be the same.
Additionally if it works, IMO it would provide a cleaner template
for other projects that want to use an AL arrangement.
Cheers,
Ben
_
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?
> >>
cutables *back* to the original names and documents
the change from the version they received (which was never
public). The twice modified version is now released under
virtually any license you want, without source.
My attempted license tries to address all three
pointers to the complete, free of charge, unmodified
>versions.
>
So you would not like to see something called "perlex" or
something called "oraperl" distributed with no instructions
on how to get "perl"? By contrast I would not mind that.
>
>Let me di
with the current license. The Perl community is
unlikely to have such a good opportunity again for years if
not decades. If a good solution can be decided on, now is
clearly the time to do it.
Cheers,
Ben
_
Get Your Privat
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 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
am talking about. We write it, and then solicit opinions and
>changes and suggestions.
Saying you got most of the ideas is one thing.
Saying that it is something you would want to take to court
is another kettle of fish!
If the lawyers are proposing docume
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
means that your obligations are much more clearly spelled
out, and there is less micromanagement of what you may and may
not do. However it is a significant rewrite, and I would like
to see another iteration (hopefully with some legal input)
before I try drawing this up as an RFP.
Cheers,
Ben
PS This
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 in
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
>
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
&
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
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
the Artistic License. (I do not
want to publically discuss the shape of the current one, it is
not good.)
[...]
Thanks for the heads up.
Ben
_
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.
disagree, why
should code be able to?
Cheers,
Ben
THE ARTISTIC LICENSE
VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000
Preamble
The intent of this License is to state terms under which the
developers of a free software project may allow use and borrowing
from
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.
this clause. However the following suggests that we can
simply remove the clause:
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
In a brief search I found no other sign of any other potential
problems for people wishing to distribute under the GPL.
Cheers
is valid; non-lawyers should be able to read this
>license and be able to understand it.
My tendancy is to be verbose..I think having more people put
input would be a good thing.
>I will modify Ben's version, and will post my draft today or tommorrow
>morning.
>
I am looking forwa
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? :)
h the AL being as I
rewrote it, with 1.3 and 1.4 changed to match the GPL
wording in section 0, and whatever changes Bradley Kuhn
comes up with included.
Thanks,
Ben
_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
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.
d an ongoing
>concern of mine. We have an opportunity to correct a long-standing error
>that
>has allowed bad things to happen, and I spoke out of turn.
>
I suspect the error is not an error, and your definition of
"bad things" is not necessarily shared. As long as Larry is
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,
&
erl.exe.
>That's the problem.
>
It would be a bigger problem if they say you cannot redistribute
perl.exe.
Would you care to comment on whether either or both proposed RFCs
manage to address your issue?
Thanks,
Ben
___
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
sort out the perceived situation.
I suspect the information is available in perforce, if it is
not that is likely an oversight. The information on how to
get those patches is not as widely available as it should be,
again politeness will probably resolve that.
Have you tried those avenues?
Chee
t's a profoundly good idea. Yes, having
>the source freely available takes off some of the pressures we might
>otherwise see with a closed-source language (Though for all that it's
>nasty, Visual Basic manages
sed under the AL+GPL or GPL?
(ie Implementations of Perl either are done from scratch or are
free software.) Until you began talking about your desire to
see new implementations I had never really wondered at that...
Thanks,
Ben
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
>>>
>&
trying to pass
> > themselves off as Shakespeare or Lewis Caroll... :)
>
>Can't a trademark be used to protect "Perl", even if the code is in the
>public domain?
Yes..if someone is ready to actively defend it. Can you picture
Larry sending a ton of "cease and
y compatible
with the GPL, and so dual-licensing trivially solves that, to
the benefit of those who want to mix GPLed code and Perl.
Conversely the GPL is not compatible with commercial uses that
Perl is supposed to be used for.
So they each have their role in the overall scheme.
Cheers,
Ben
_
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
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
> >
restrictions you are looking
for. In fact I think it is the only idea under discussion
which could be palatable to Perl developers that comes close
to doing so.
Cheers,
Ben
_
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.
ith the GPL leading to patches
that cannot go into Perl doesn't bother me in the slightest.
However creating potential problems for people who want to
use Perl to create GPLed programs would, and dual licensing is
a very clea
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
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
