Re: RFC 219 (v1) Perl6's License Should Be a Minor Bugfix of Perl5's License

Ben Tilly wrote:
> The Perl6 RFC Librarian quoth:
> >
> >This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> >   http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
> >
> >=head1 TITLE
> >
> >Perl6's License Should Be a Minor Bugfix of Perl5's License
> [...]
 
> This resolves very few of the IMHO rather serious issues I have found 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.

I actually do tend to agree with you, but I thought the "minimal change"
proposal had some merit, so I thought it deserved an RFC.  Just because I
wrote the RFC doesn't mean I endorse that plan over some other one.

Perhaps I should say that explicitly in the RFC....


-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn  -  http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE5wSuk53XjJNtBs4cRAl/9AKC5BysZyswUW2aWza8z3Wl5fybGBwCcC9lq
AV0QephurveQKJFcZ+zB8bM=
=4EiZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----