Re: no one is asking for Perl to be GPL-only (was Re: licensing issues)

> >For example, I'd like to see CPAN.pm warn you if you are about to
> >install a module which will, licensing-wise, force you down a GPL-only
> >or AL-only fork when you use it in your programs.

Personally I'd be thrilled to know that the module works at all, and returns useful data sometime this year... 
but anyway, I am beginning to feel that the CPAN issues are superflous to perl6 licensing.

The whole reason to meet Richard and the FSF in the free s/w dmz is to get access to modules or code snippets already written and tested in 
our sister languages, Ruby, Python and Blackdown.  KSH is soon to be open source, the TCL stuff may be applicable.  Scheme and Lisp come 
to mind as well.  KSH would do well to create packages themselves, if they want to keep challanging perl :).

My impression of some of the internals list talk is that each of the above could be fed to the same VM and that that VM could be ours, only it 
would be a second version of Perl6, the first would run Perl code exclusively so as to get a solid product out the door sometime soon.

he GPL is the least common denomiator out there and the comment about perl on GNU's "other licenses" page doesnt trash it outright, just asks 
for clarification, in a sarcastic way tho.

The distance between the GPL and AL seems to be whether modifications to Perl code would be proprietary or not.  You can release proprietary 
code compiled w/ GCC.

It would then seem that the modules grafted from GPL sources would have to be re-written by whomever wants to leave the GPL, and they would 
have to specify AL w/ their products.

John