: must be specified) and
>(specific technology) is a trademark of O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. Used
>with permission."
Any camel associated with Perl falls under that trademark (according to
O'Reilly).
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
not that license.
True, unless we stick to the same licensing scheme we have today for perl,
which, like it or not, has served Perl very, very well.
But yes, I see no way to put perl solely under the GPL. That's just about
the worst thing we could do, aside from making perl non-&qu
At 0:59 -0500 2001.01.09, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> True, unless we stick to the same licensing scheme we have today for perl,
>> which, like it or not, has served Perl very, very well.
>
>As it turns out, this isn't
till
_essentially_ working toward the same goal -- free software -- and as you
said, having the GPL on perl has helped perl and its community tremendously.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
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
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
o it.
>
>Why do you feel the AL-2.0 that I proposed is less readable than the
>current one?
I did not say it was. I was speaking generally, not specifically. I
apologize for any confusion on the matter.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
d, 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. :)
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.ne
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 someo
At 19.55 -0800 01.14.2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
>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 c
r than
punish supposed offenders. To have suchg a wrong-headed motivation seems
to me to be asking for failure.
>However, there's a fly in the ointment. In current circumstances, Larry's
>hands may well be tied to so much as consider an "official" charter of
>this natur
to
users about what is compatible with what at this level. Does that make
sense?
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
h
something new on his own. I think this is the case with _everything_
related to this phase of things. Rule #1 still applies. At least, this is
my understanding.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
'd be thrilled to know that the module works at all, and returns
>useful data sometime this year...
It does, and has for some time, so feel free to be thrilled. HTH.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
;>
>> perl-builders?
>
>Or to be more whimsical:
>
> perl-night-shift
> perl-night-build
>
>It probably needs a name that'll both indicate its role and avoid confusion
>with 'porters' (who do most of the 'building' to the unt
should not be designed to be punitive, and
you say that this means all discussion about licensing, charters, and the
rest is pointless in light of that idea.
Please make sense if you are going to address me in the future, or simply
don't bother addressing me at all. Thanks,
--
Chris N
to 32-bit integers
>(they moved the epoch from 1970 to 1971, I think, when their previous
>size of integer was about to run out of space, then when it ran out
>again next year they said "yeah, ok, wrong solution" :-).
Yeah; if you change us Macs to 1970 instead of 1904, we actua
Can we please cut down on the traffic to perl-announce, maybe make it
moderated? Thanks,
--
Chris Nandor | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://pudge.net/
Andover.Net| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://slashcode.com/
Here are some comments from Matthias Neeracher, the MacPerl author, and a
few comments from me.
>To: Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Fwd: RFC 99 (v2) Standardize ALL Perl platforms on UNIX epoch
>Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 07:31:25 +0200
>From: Matthias Ulrich
* 36;
} else {
require Time::Local;
$tz_offset = sprintf "%+0.4d\n", (Time::Local::timelocal(localtime)
- Time::Local::timelocal(gmtime));
}
return $tz_offset;
}
Returns:
966770661
966770661
3049601062
Sun Aug 20 07:24:22 2000
--
Chris Nandor | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://pudge.net/
Andover.Net| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://slashcode.com/
ings which don't need to be taken out.
If there's a good reason to remove localtime(), then fine. But please say
something more than "web applications don't need it."
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
At 17:44 +0200 2000.08.22, Markus Peter wrote:
>--On 22.08.2000 11:18 Uhr -0400 Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>> If there's a good reason to remove localtime(), then fine. But please say
>> something more than "web applications don't need it."
>
>Well, I di
it when apps are compiled to be 64 bit:
Interesting. I still think we should have our own real 64-bit time,
though, since not all platforms will be 64 bit (although by 2020 they may
be), and perhaps not all of them will be LP64 (and I confess to not know
what that stands for :).
--
on my own is AL-only, and is free software, in every definition of
the phrase, including RMS' definitions.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
sting to discuss what a new
version of the AL might be. I mean, EVERYTHING going on in these perl6
groups is subject to Larry's approval on some level or another.
I am more interested not in discussing a "new AL" as it might pertain to
perl 6, however, but just as a license i
At 16:42 -0700 2000.09.10, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> However, I feel the need to emphasize that licenses are not necessarily
>> legal documents.
>
>I think this is a key point of disagreement. If the license is not a
>le
hat, as noted explicitly
above, seem quite clear to me.
>And please, folks, don't follow up and tell me what the AL means. If you
>have to tell me what it means, it's not clear enough; that's the entire
>point.
Hm. What license has NOT been explained to peopl
here is a lawyer helping
us out. Lawyers should come last.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
>have many copyright holders (which Perl does).
No, Larry is the Copyright Holder:
"Copyright Holder" is whoever is named in the copyright or
copyrights for the package.
"Package" refers to the collection of files distributed by the
Copyr
terms
> acceptable to lawyers and it is worth making it do so.
>
>4. Perl folks are not exactly fond of litigation and lawyerly
> details.
>
>Can we all agree on these points?
No. I disagree with #3.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
not find it acceptable. I gave you an example of
lawyers who do. That's all I was saying. If you had wished to be more
specific, you should have been.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
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,
>
apart and rewrite
>from scratch.
>
>Well legal documents are similar.
So? So we rewrite if we need to. What's the problem there? I've spent
much of my life rewriting prose after editors get done with it. That is
part of the process. Or, to borrow from ESR, "plan to thr
same problems that people have with the GPL?
>The guidance we have for that something else is that
>previous Larry made it clear that he wants to keep
>some sort of artistic control over Perl, but doesn't
>want to impose any other restrictions. The wording
>
won't try to dissuade
you from your opinion. I only assert that I have a different one.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
rsed, in
general, in writing clearly. I envision the best license as being one that
is written by a very good writer who has a vested interest in the issue at
hand (or written by a group of us, and edited by such a person mentioned),
that is approved of by competent lawyers.
--
Chris Nandor
me to come up with your arguments for you. If you have
arguments, you present them. It's just odd that you expect me to argue
against arguments you haven't even presented here.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
rty lawyer? The aspect of preserving the
>name of the package is fairly unique to the AL;
Yes, and it is its most important unique feature, to me.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
At 13:02 -0700 2000.09.11, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> At 10:58 -0400 2000.09.11, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>>> I have been talking with Eben Moglen, a prominent law professor at
>>> Columbia University, and he is w
At 14:05 -0700 2000.09.10, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I do not think we should encourage ANY specific licensing terms for CPAN
>> content, except that it should be an open source license of some kind.
>
>I agree with this as a
in court;
That is false. I have expressed a lack of concern over whether or not
people who want to go to court, do go to court. The only people who would
go to court over the AL are those who want to go to court.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
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 terms agreeable with the
>> > above statement
ic
License that Larry has full authority to make distribution and modification
arrangements? I'd hate to be in the position of trying to argue that Larry
didn't have any rights to make such arrangements. I'd have to argue that I
was too lazy or stupid to even make a quick read throug
sagree, 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?
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
l works. :-) There is no legal
problem with the AL defining the term. It would be perfectly legal for me
to have "Legal Document" defined at the top of my license as "any document
written on legal size paper." As lon as I define it up front, it is OK.
>In addition
At 20:04 -0700 2000.09.11, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But my point is that I don't want a laywer actually writing the license.
>> I would rather he give his input and opinions, and then others do the
>> writing. I am fa
At 19:10 -0400 2000.09.10, Chris Nandor wrote:
>No, I am interested in both. The fact that you didn't understand that
>could be my fault, but I think I made it clear enough.
You know, I think I want to make this more clear.
I am interested in how various licenses will be interpre
modules on CPAN, and
>even some files in the perl5 core are under Artistic-License-only, despite
>Larry's encouragements to use the Artistic License I as part of a
>dual-license scheme.
I don't believe he made any such encouragements.
I think this RFC is a good first draft. Thanks,
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
If we stick with it, then I will make
Time::Epoch convert between Mac OS and Unix time, and any other epoch we
deem necessary.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
correct time on Unix:
print scalar localtime $perlsec;
# correct time on Mac OS (-0400):
print scalar localtime $epochsec;
I should put it up on CPAN. If anyone wants it, let me know.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
t;an awful lot of Windows users.
I don't think so; AFAIK, the epoch is the same in Windows as in Unix.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
d agree with
>you on that one.
It's common sense. The AL grants the Copyright Holder -- which is clearly
stated to be, in the case of Perl, Larry, whether you think it would hold
up or not -- authority to make these decisions. If you don't like that,
then you shouldn't allow your code to be included. If you have a problem
with the AL, you should ask or refuse to allow your code to be included.
You can't get much more implicit than that.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
re fine with it in the thread
on p5p, Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
he source to perl and make something not called
perl and make it totally incompatible with perl and somewhat proprietary
... *shrug*.
Why don't you just use the GPL? That's what I don't understand.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
t;ignoring what lawyers have to
say" is a mark of either disingenousness or carelessness.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
ine.
> Speaking strictly for myself, I think anyone who tries to write a
>legally binding document without the help of a lawyer is a self-destructive
>fool, and I have the scars to prove it.
Why would you say that, when not one person here suggested such a thing? Odd.
--
t;Package" refers to the collection of files distributed by the
Copyright Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files
created through textual modification.
3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, provided
that you insert a prominent notice in eac
need to handle datetime. (And I find it
>easier to read the ISO version than a time in seconds)
I think it would be reasonable to have a quick-and-easy way to get the time
in the extended ISO format, as Russ noted it.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
At 11:01 -0400 2000.09.14, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>> There's also the possibility of time accepting an argument, where 0 would
>> be perl's time and 1 would be native time, or something.
>
>Now that's a clever idea.
True. In Mac OS, time_t is unsigned long (that is how it can start at
1904-01-01 00:00:00 (local time) and still be valid today while still being
32 bits :).
>Maybe POSIX makes more guarantees.
I don't think it does, but I am not sure.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROT
epoch were used for MacPerl, I don't think I would _ever_ need to get the
Mac OS epoch (though I would certainly want it available if necessary). I
can't say the same for VMS, or for other Mac users.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Sourc
perl's time and 1 would be native time, or something.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
At 11:59 -0400 2000.09.14, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>> Well, Perl is about making things easy. What is the most common case,
>> needing an arbitrary value of time that may or may not be used to transfer
>> between platforms, or
At 17:47 -0400 2000.09.14, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>>>>>> "CN" == Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>CN> No, that won't really work. When my offset from GMT changes for daylight
>CN> savings time, it will break. The point of h
oint, and if so, what
it is. I am not trying to be difficult. Maybe I am just tired, but I am
not sure what you are trying to say.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
At 9:17 -0400 2000.09.15, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>>>>>> "CN" == Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>CN> At 22:19 -0400 2000.09.14, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>>> If you want to adjust for timezones just calculate the constant. Which
>>
ls will work pretty much the
>CN> same whether we change time() to return native or Perl epoch.
>
>I'm on the side of no change. Just enough that a user can determine how
>to offset the return from time, to pass to other data sinks.
If you want no change, then what are y
At 17:11 -0400 2000.09.15, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>>>>>> "CN" == Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> This new module to cover your feature would require that it know every
>>> known epoch and timesystem (or at least the useful ones.)
I wrote RFC 73. ;-)
And it would make me stop using Perl faster than your object method could
be resolved.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
At 11:56 -0400 2000.09.17, Chris Nandor wrote:
>At 11:10 -0700 2000.09.16, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>>Now, one thing that should probably be explored is creating a time
>>object, similar to the date object specified in RFC 48. In fact, I'd
>>just assume "All Perl core
At 9:08 -0700 2000.09.18, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Chris Nandor wrote:
>>
>> >just assume "All Perl core functions should return objects", and hence
>> >the reason I wrote RFC 73. ;-)
>>
>> And it would make me stop using Perl faster than your objec
be implemented that you haven't shared (aside from the offset,
because that simply brings us back to "offset from what?").
>have multiple. All that is required that a perl program be able
>to determine portably what the difference between the syscall idea
>of time and so
GMT, or the difference from anything, cannot be hardcoded,
because it is dynamic, depending on what timezone you are in at the moment.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
me out one second off in my calculation between Unix and Mac OS; I
think this is a leap second issue. I don't know how important it is.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
becacuse I've seen
you rant on it before, many times. I do not acknowledge any problem at all.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
At 19:07 +0100 2000.09.25, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 02:02:30PM -0400, Chris Nandor wrote:
>> No. I acknowledged that you perceive it as a problem, becacuse I've seen
>> you rant on it before, many times. I do not acknowledge any problem at all.
>
>M
t;loophole" has not hurt anyone and has helped a lot of people who
could not or would not have used perl otherwise.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
n many occassions. Please do not be disingenous about this. I
refuse to continue a discussion where someone is lying to me and the other
people reading the discussion.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
ghten me out?
>>
>>1) Works developed in Perl may be distributed under either the GPL or the
>>AL, dealer's choice
>
>Yes.
No. They may be distributed under any licensing terms at all that you wish!
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.
ort. Suffice it to say that no such damage has existed,
ever.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
otice,
No.
>putting together a decent draft is a fair amount of work, and
>to date I have found your input to be extremely unhelpful.
Well, I've found your drafts uninteresting, so I guess we are even.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Sou
s to find a way to state what I thought
>was the core feeling of the Artistic License in a sound way.
The problem is that the point of having a layperson write it is so that we
can have it in plain English. If we are going to resort to legalese, we
might as well let a lawyer write it, so it ac
At 10:03 -0400 2000.09.25, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Chris Nandor wrote:
>>At 23:42 -0500 2000.09.24, David Grove wrote:
>> >Whatever is done, it should be clear that a situation that exists today
>>should
>> >not be permitted in the future. It should be impossible for a
ch is what they have) and not release all the changes as source, then
that is their business. If the community doesn't like it, it will release
its own Win32 version, actually called "perl," to compete.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
84 matches
Mail list logo
