Subject: Re: Free Software vs. Open Source
From: Simon Cozens <simon@netthink.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:08:03 +0000

Ben_Tilly@trepp.com:
> My reading of that discussion left me with a mental label that says that
> Dan Sugalski is someone who was willing to do extra work to avoid
> licensing issues. 

Oh, I'm willing to work to avoid GPLed code if possible and practical.
We want Perl to be used by big corporates as well, and the GPL, rightly
or wrongly, makes corporate uptake less likely. But those two words are
important - possible and practical. 

In many cases, the practical solution is to avoid GPLed code simply
because it's badly (read - non-portably) written.

> BTW what are we arguing about?  And why?

Dunno. You said something that was wrong, and I corrected it, that's how
these things happen. I've got you to climb down from "Perl has gone to a
load of lengths to avoid GPLed code" to "some Perl developers have
expressed willing to do extra work to avoid licensing issues, whether or
not they'll be doing the extra work in any case because of portability
or other practical issues, and besides, they've only talked about it and
I can't or won't give a practical example of them actually having *done*
it", which suits me.

-- 
Spell check: did you mean unicorde?  - altavista