Re: Why modifing the Artistic license is a good idea (was Re: licensing issues)

--FBsy7fuq80OTnykD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Chris Nandor <[email protected]> wrote:

> I disagree entirely, as you may already know.  It is very clear on this
> point.  The only significant business complaints I have _ever_ heard (from
> actual businesses) about the AL comes from said businesses' lawyers.

A business' legal team typically has the final say whether or not a piece of
software gets used.  Pleasing them is a worthwhile goal for the success of
Perl.

Many of them aren't comfortable with the GPL, so it's key that the other
half of Perl's license make them happy.


My understanding of the consensus is that we don't want Perl hackers at
companies to ever have to say: "I wanted to use and ship Perl, but the
company lawyers weren't comfortable with perl's license, so I didn't."

I think the proposed AL-2.0 will have better success in this regard than the
current AL.

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

--FBsy7fuq80OTnykD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE6Y2tM53XjJNtBs4cRAtgeAJ9QWVkAAAfJjI0lmpvVJZdjOIGYjACfc+kX
dwXtt1NyIzoJOm1AcJd3yfM=
=pKaJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--FBsy7fuq80OTnykD--