« More licensing followup... | Main | Finally, back to coding. »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

glad this is near resolution, these posts are not nearly as enjoyable as your code-focused posts.

i have been trying to do some "real" coding in pugs. wow, people need to appreciate the colossal amount of work done there. its slow, but functional in ways i had not expected. and the docs are decent too.

I much prefer copyleft licenses, but as the MIT license does not disclaim copyright I can accept it for my contributions to Pugs itself.

For code included in the official Perl 6 distribution, I strongly prefer the Artistic/GPL combination recommended by the TPF.

I hope this is sufficient and helpful clarification.

Chromatic: Thanks, that is very helpful. Surely all MIT license code can be relicensed into Artistic2, as recommended by TPF, some time in the future, if needed be.

As an aside, are we still going with the +GPL? I thought one of A2b14's main feature over A2b5 is that it can be morphed into GPL at any time, in clause 4(c)(ii).

grumpY: Indeed, I was really tired out by this whole episode of trying to find ways to avoid the possibly-illegal current status of Pugs. I'm glad it's all coming to an end now, and look forward to finish implementing all the suggestions from TPF, so I can go back to coding for real.

chromatic: I've now reflected README, as well as this entry, to reflect that I now intend for src/ to be under the MIT license.

Thanks for your prompt feedback on this matter!

I certainly am glad that the MIT license was chosen.

This project is quite fascinating: I'll be investigating both Haskell and Perl(6) as to begin participating.

Also, Jifty appears to be pretty interesting, as well.


The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31