RE: RFC idea

The issue was closed ages ago. Continuing it in this direction is pointless. 
However, I find it fascinating how tempting it seems to be for a moron to take 
a cheap shot at someone trying to _correct_ a problem just because they've had 
a few too many. Assuming that you have a remote clue, and are even posting on 
topic, one may only conclude that you have completely missed the fact that you 
are attempting to convince a forum whose purpose is to re-evaluate the Perl 
license(s) that there is no reason to do so. Maybe Larry has a different agenda 
concerning Perl than _you_ want him to? Or perhaps you missed the whole 
"sweeping changes" thing and need to go back to July to catch up. I think Larry 
is more politically correct than I am, and has a calmer head, but I wouldn't 
venture to guess that he would be one to miss a company attempting to (pick 
one) a) steal; or b) destroy; or c) both a and b (end of multiple choice) his 
life's work. I would also venture to guess that he wouldn't want you as his 
mouthpiece, since yours is precisely the attitude that poses eventually to lead 
perl to its own destruction due to the arrogance and complacency of its own 
maintainers.

What precisely, in your opinion, _is_ Larry's agenda? (Rhetorical question, 
since you seem to have no clue, and I'm too busy for nonsense.) Has it escaped 
you that he has recognized problems, including problems in this direction? 
Including problems in the Company X and Company M directions? Has it escaped 
you that we have a new set of leaders? Has it escaped you that are having this 
discussion in one of several mailing lists designed for discussing how to get 
perl unstuck from the mud and gunk it has found itself in? Has it escaped you 
that I didn't drag Company X's name into this, but decently identified a valid 
licensing issue, decently discussed it, and decently assented when common sense 
was shown? If you must drop Larry's name, do so with at least _some_ respect. 
Pay attention to what he's saying, pay attention to what's happening around 
you, and don't use his name in a nonsensical personal attack because Larry is 
simply above that sort of behavior. I believe that Larry is moving in a good 
direction... radical change to what the _people_ want and need, not what 
corporate entities like Company X wants and needs to accompilsh its 
less-than-ethical goals.

You would make an excellent Company X employee, attacking a person and spouting 
off off-topic nonsense rather than discussing the issue on the table. Maybe you 
should apply. Or maybe you already work there? I haven't been keeping up on 
who's sold us out to the devil recently.

In case you haven't gotten the scorecard for that inning, it was recognized 
that there is a problem, Pudge himself betrayed his own arrogance by a 
identifying a problem area that he said didn't exist, it was recognized that 
Company X does seem to use legal trickery to accomplish their motives, but it 
was determined (among the three of us who were actually on topic and not 
attempting to resort to personal attacks to vent) to be the lesser of 
several(?) evils and needed to be in place for reason's other than "Larry's 
agenda". Do you have anything to add to that discussion, or are you only 
interested in spouting off random personal attacks in open flames against 
honest people trying to work proactively against a very bad situation using 
appropriate means in appropriate fora? Pudge was barely on topic, you are 
totally off.

Did you have your jollies for the evening? Maybe it's time to have some coffee 
and sober up. Some of us have work to do and don't have time or inclination to 
laugh at the clown in center ring.

Pathetic.

If you have further flames or personal attacks to make, feel free to > 
/dev/null. Otherwise, there's a topic in here.

On Monday, September 25, 2000 6:44 PM, Russ Allbery [SMTP:[email protected]] 
wrote:
> Chris Nandor <[email protected]> writes:
> > At 11:28 -0500 2000.09.25, David Grove wrote:
>
> >> Evidently you've recognized a problem area that I may not have seen
> >> before
>
> I think most of us recognize David Grove at this point, at least those of
> us who have been on perl5-porters.
>
> David, Larry Wall has a different agenda concerning Perl than you want him
> to have.  Unless you can convince him personally that his agenda is wrong,
> you're not going to get anywhere with this; I highly doubt that any of the
> rest of us are going to support a license that is more restrictive than
> the one that Larry intentionally chose.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery ([email protected])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>