perl status update

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee highos at
Thu Dec 20 18:07:13 PST 2001


On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 10:59:21PM +0000, Mark Ellis wrote:
> Actually I was asking about this a little while ago, in November I 
> believe. The perl alfs was basically unlicensed, ie there wasn't one to 
> speak of. Neven said he thought the BSD was going to be used, Matthias, 
> suggested the GPL for more protection, so as Neven was the only original 
> author who piped in and didn't seem sure i said i'd put in the GPL, though 
> that hasn't occured yet. Since then David (Siegel) said he's fine with the 
> GPL. Just to be certain i'll email direct everyone i can to get an 
> 'official' response before doing anything, only problem is I haven't heard 
> Brian Dumm or Jesse Tie Ten Quee around recently, i know Jesse was 
> disappearing.

Yes, it's my fault i never released the perl alfs with a license.  I was
uncertain about the views of a few ppl that contributed code and either
way, never did another release. (allthough later on, i did get a
confirmation from everyone in one way or another)

But we have all had many long conversations and discussions about the
official license ALFS material would be under.  We agreed on a BSD

So, the old perl alfs material should all be under the BSD; Everyone
that had contributed code towards it had agreed upon this.

Myself, Gerard Beekmans, Bryan Dumm, David Siegel and Neven Has were the
only ones to touch the perl alfs, afiak.

> Back to the point, libxml is LGPL, so there really isn't a problem, if i 
> understand it right you can link to that code even from proprietary stuff.

Actually it's under a dual-license of W3C IPR and the LGPL, so yeah, no
problems in that regard.

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee - highos at linuxfromscratch dot org
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list