"John van V." <john_van_v / yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>--- Mathieu Bouchard and Robert Feldt wrote:
[...]
>This is why I have been advocating a joining of Perl's Artistic License and 
>the
>GPL.  Code could be dragged back and forth w/o fear of litigation.  Frankly 
>the
>differences arent that obvious that a judge could tell them apart.  This is
>where I fear the Opensource movement is failing-- it naturally includes 
>work
>for lawyers.

We have disagreed on this before, and before we disagree
again I should point out that Ruby is also under a dual
license between the GPL and the Artistic License, similar
to Perl's situation.

The Artistic License is incredibly different in spirit
from the GPL.  The core of the difference is that the
Artistic License is friendly to people who wish to embed
the software in commercial applications, the main point
of the GPL is to prevent exactly that.

The sharing between the two is one-way.  (GPL may borrow
from Ruby/Perl, but not the other way around.)

Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com