I am considering adding PIR translations (and possibly other language
translations) of the OpenGL Programming Guide ("Red Book") sample code
to examples/opengl/ in the Parrot repository. The original C version of
this code is under the seemingly free license at the bottom of this
message. What do
> Respectfully, as with the other
> issues, let's please give Larry his time at bat with the RFC as it stands
> rather than second guessing ourselves again redundantly after the fact.
very good, here's your lollipop ;)
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:27:21PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Could you explain why do you think going more GPL would be a good thing
> for Perl?
I do not think that Bradley is suggesting that Perl would "go more GPL",
because that would be indefensibly insane. Bradley is proposing that
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:24:06PM +, David Grove wrote:
> This was the subject of a list and an RFC. I'd hope not to see what we
> worked hard to come up with not go to waste, guys and gals. We came up
> with a "least of all evils" solution, I think, and I feel very strongly
Where can this s
This was the subject of a list and an RFC. I'd hope not to see what we
worked hard to come up with not go to waste, guys and gals. We came up
with a "least of all evils" solution, I think, and I feel very strongly
that not protecting Perl from outright theft, especially using very iffy
licenses al
> 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-"free."
This is now *way way* off topic for perl6-internals. A relevant issue for
perl6-internals had been whether we could or should rely on an LPGL
library (gm
Could you explain why do you think going more GPL would be a good thing
for Perl? What things it would change compared with the current scheme?
What problems it would solve? Do you not think it would create new ones?
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People who are going to steal the source will do so regardless of the
> license on the source, and the people who are going to respect the license
> will do so regardless of which it is.
The license has to be sound, clear, and defendable legally---that m
At 15:32 -0500 2001.01.05, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>Honestly, the license we choose will only restrict those people who will
>respect it, either for moral or legal reasons. That's one reason to choose
>a license that places the fewest restrictions on those people, and the GPL
>is not that license.
Tr
use the GNU license, then we dont have to worry about
>applications meant for perl being written in some other less appropriate
>language because of licensing issues.
No matter which license we choose, people will have an issue with it.
Honestly, the license we choose will only restr
of licensing issues.
GNU Mailman comes to mind where the number of developers for this crucial groupware is
drastically reduced by its being written in Python, not
to mention being hamstringed by its string handling.
Ruby, for instance really looks good, but we seem to yo-yo back no matter how
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
> > I personally think that the relying on LGPL'ed code is completely
> > reasonable. Some will disagree, so we need to come to a consensus on this
> > as a community.
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. What are the consequences for t
12 matches
Mail list logo
