From owner-freebsd-advocacy Thu Mar 25 5:41:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mail1.WorldMediaCo.com (unknown [207.252.121.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07DE514BDB for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 05:41:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from opsys@omaha.com) Received: from localhost ([207.252.120.95]) by mail1.WorldMediaCo.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-55573U2500L250S0V35) with SMTP id com; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 07:31:30 -0600 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 07:40:51 -0600 (CST) From: opsys@omaha.com (opsys) X-Sender: opsys@localhost To: Anton Berezin Cc: Donald Wilde , freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: a call for s/w support In-Reply-To: <864sna613n.fsf@lion.plab.ku.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I don't think it's a wise decision. How the fact that your scripts > are written in Perl can harm your advocacy efforts? I can see no > difference between creating the scripts using GPLed gcc and > not-quite-as-GPLed perl! One is even able to choose between GPL and > Artistic licenses for Perl stuff. Also, nobody can hold you from > releasing your perl scripts with whatever license you like. > > Aside from that, the whole idea seems to me like a waste of time and > efforts. Perl is simply better suited for the job. As jordan pointed out when CMU lost my vote for using CODA when they switched CODA to the GPL, you have ZERO right to tell someone what license they wish to use on the code they create. And if don wants a BSD-L he should get no grief for that. It's his project and im glad hes trying to keep it all under a BSD license. Chris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message