Re: The "Do what you want" license and enforceability (was Re: licensing issues)

David Grove <[email protected]> writes:

> Satisfying Stillman might be good enough for the FSF and ODSN and GNU,
> but that's quite insubstantial and superficial.

(It's Stallman; I wouldn't say anything, but I've seen that twice now.)

Note that Stallman is already satisfied with the license on *Perl* itself,
so there isn't any need to change Perl's license to satisfy those parties.
In the context of satisfying the Open Source folks and the FSF,
clarifications of the AL are only useful for those packages that are only
covered by the AL.

I got the impression that this was one of the reasons why Larry never
bothered before with making the AL more lawyer-proof; since he intended it
to be used in conjuction with the GPL, it didn't need to be, since the GPL
was always there as a well-understood legal license if someone needed one
for some reason.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email protected])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>