Re: licensing issues

David Grove <[email protected]> writes:
>
>All law in my country (the United States) is, in one way or another, based
>upon a single document, our Constitution. However, that document is based
>upon a previous document which is equally important, in that it expresses
>the nature of our "spirit", our Declaration of Independence from England.
>(Recent events have forced us to turn to other early writings, however, to
>further discover the nature of this "spirit".) Many if not most countries
>have similar foundations written in paper (or stone or clay tablets or
>whatever). These documents speak, in few words, the entire nature of the
>cultures whom they represent.

First let me say that as England does not have a written Consititution
my country may have given me a different outlook.
But it seems to me that you have just said that the enforcable "Licence" 
i.e. the Constitution, is not sufficient and that another non-enforcable 
document - the Declaration of Independance - is what specifies the "spirit".

>
>Licensing could effectively express the nature, desires, and spirit of the
>Perl community, not only to grant rights, but to say once and for all that
>we cannot tolerate abuse of those desires and our kind and generous
>spirit.

I think it will be very hard to get Perl's "spirit" into enforcable legalese
- but it may be worth trying.

-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons