Bradley M. Kuhn writes:
> I wrote http://tmtowtdi.perl.org/rfc/13.pod to propose that we create a
> licensing working group. It needs someone in authority to create the
> working group. Unfortunately, I have yet to find out how the process works
> to create new top-level working groups.
>
> Of
Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >No, it's a CPAN module.
> Oh, good. Someone has a licensing list going--somewhere.
I wrote http://tmtowtdi.perl.org/rfc/13.pod to propose that we create a
licensing working group. It needs someone in authority to create the
working group. Unfortunately, I have yet
>No, it's a CPAN module.
Oh, good. Someone has a licensing list going--somewhere. So long
as we in the core never do anything with a licence that would scare
anyone away from Perl, then we're fine. People's own software
[read: on CPAN] they make available on their own terms, though, of
course.
Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does that mean that we're tossing out all other less onerous licensing
> schemata, like Artistic or BSD, and that consequently Perl is now
> guaranteed to be infested by the infinitely divisive political
> problems and pernicious peculations of rms and
>Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> With Bruno Haible's permission, I'm reposting a portion of our
>> correspondence. The gist of which is that he'd be willing to make ffcall
>> available for use with Perl under the LGPL.
>Great. I suggest that this topic be moved to the library list (
Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With Bruno Haible's permission, I'm reposting a portion of our
> correspondence. The gist of which is that he'd be willing to make ffcall
> available for use with Perl under the LGPL.
Great. I suggest that this topic be moved to the library list (or is
