The logic you talk about indeed is flawed; What I was thinking
is: "If it keeps me from contributing, maybe it keeps others
from contributing, too"... Not that I'm such a valuable source
of Perl Wisdom, but there are others, where them being dispelled
by what looks like sloppiness in licensing, would just be
too sad.
I see, that was not the case with Abigail, I was wrong there,
as Aighearach proved.
But I nevertheless think licensing may be more important than
the Everything Development team considers it to be right now, and
/might/ be worth a boost in priority; It could even turn out to be a
relatively easy way to gain development speed.
And for your second point, as well as for my "objection,
as chromatic calls it:
I've no problem with everything development and vroom beeing the
maintainers of the code. But even it were alpha - which it doesn't
seem like, we're using it like production code, here - there's
no reason for a license like that (except liking coding better
than Licensing Issues, which all of us do, I believe).
There are examples for free alpha code maintained by one person.
Development isn't slowed down but speeded up by a good free
license - IMNSHO. And that's why I care.
antihec
--
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Explain to me please HOW you are prevented from contributing?
The license says, very plainly, if you make a big change, send it to the team. This language seems to ENCOURAGE changes, not prevent them. The idea that because you cant freely redistribute your changes you are prevented from changing it is ridiculous, I dont see anywhere in the license where you are prohibited from changing things. The very idea that you think you are suggests you didnt read clearly - again, it says plainly that if you make a big change just submit it back to the dev team. I still dont understand HOW that prohibits ANYONE from changing the code. If a license has a clause specifically regarding changing code and submitting said changes, that license infers you are allowed, even encouraged to change it!
Regards,
spectre
| [reply] |
I didn't state anywhere that the license forbids contributing.
To cite you "The very idea that you think (that) suggests
you didnt read clearly" :-)
The license just sets things up in a non-free way, and causes me (and I fear
maybe others, too) to not want to contribute to
the code. A simple issue that could easily be dealt with
by the powers that be.
And trust me I did read the license. My intention is not to
bash at this license. I just thought it may be worth
pestering you, if
someone would see how good free licensing (and I'm not picky
here, like some people are - bsd, gpl, artistic, you name it)
may be important to open source development. And actually
perlmonks might benefit from it. I view it as a very nice
feature. If you find a feature is missing from perlmonks in
your opinion, you may speak up, don't you? Whether it gets
implemented or not, is not as important to me as may seem
right now. But if it's going to be anyway, which seems the
case, I'd like it move up the ToDo List some places.
Sorry for being an annoyance.
antihec
--
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
| [reply]
[d/l] |