Perl is what you want it to be. You can make it readable or unreadable. There's Perl code out there that looks like C and Perl code out there that looks like Brainfuck

In any case, it's being compared to Awk here.

>> Perl is what you want it to be. You can make it readable or unreadable. There's Perl code out there that looks like C and Perl code out there that looks like Brainfuck.

Or Latin:

https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/Lingua-Romana-Perligat...

Or Klingon:

https://metacpan.org/pod/Lingua::tlhInganHol::yIghun

Or Poetry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Perl

Perl could be considered too flexible.

Marc Espie elaborates a bit on this in another post on the openbsd-misc mailing list[0]:

> As for the license, python’s license appears fairly similar to Perl’s artistic license. I would worry a bit about the strong terms in

>> 6. This License Agreement will automatically terminate upon a material breach of its terms and conditions.

> for which no equivalent is visible in Perl’s license.

[0]: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=157781106212088&w=2

What exactly does that part mean? If you're in violation of the license, you cannot correct the violation and be compliant again, but the license will be revoked immediately and there's nothing you can do about it?

It's strange though, they also have

> 8. By copying, installing or otherwise using Python 3.8.3, Licensee agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of this License Agreement.

which feels very 90ies-EULA-style. If I download ("copy") an archive that contains Python, I should be bound by that License Agreement? Since there's not severability clause, wouldn't that just void the limitations they've set?

I think in practice, if you corrected a violation you'd just be using the software under a different grant of the license.

What the hell is this? Is this even legal? Aren't these completely different concepts?

Why wouldn't it be legal?

edit: why the downvote? It states explicitly that the license is only granted as long as its requirements (T&Cs) are upheld. Which seem obvious to me, assuming the license does have conditions?

Though I guess it's less obvious to the legal profession as the MPL has a similarly explicit clause (5.1, and 5.2 also terminates the license if you initiate patent infringement litigation against "against any entity", which seems oddly broad)

People write unreadable code. Its not a function of language.

The kind of people who write unreadable code have long since moved on to write unreadable code in trendier languages and legacy critical code has long since been cleaned up if its of value.

Unreadable Perl is no longer an issue in 2020.

Presumably BSD distributions want BSD licensed software. Python has this thing: https://docs.python.org/3/license.html which is GPL compatible but might not be bsd compatible.

Perl is not BSD licensed. OpenBSD's worry is apparently section 6:

> 6. This License Agreement will automatically terminate upon a material breach of its terms and conditions.

which I'd have assumed implicit to pretty much every license — or at least every license with conditions — but I guess not if the PSF (or Mozilla which has a similar clause in the MPL) felt the need to specify it explicitly.

I wouldn’t assume so. Contracts often specify the opposite, that violation of one term does not void or negate the contract.

I don’t actually know, though. It just doesn’t seem like a safe assumption.

IANAL, but I have several in the family and have often been in a role to review contracts for professional services (I focus on the technical, legal focuses on the legal).

> I wouldn’t assume so. Contracts often specify the opposite, that violation of one term does not void or negate the contract.

I have not seen this language. Typically violating a condition of the contract means you are in breach. Sometimes remedies to certain breaches are enumerated in the contract.

The language about one item not voiding or negating the whole is often in regard to the legality of the contract, something like below (excerpted from an MSA from a client):

> If any term, condition, or provision in this Agreement is found to be invalid, unlawful, or unenforceable to any extent, the parties shall endeavor in good faith to agree to such amendments that will preserve, as far as possible, the intentions expressed in this Agreement. If the parties fail to agree on such an amendment, such invalid term, condition, or provision shall be severed from the remaining terms, conditions and provisions, which shall continue to be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

This is basically saying if one term in the contract is voided, it does not void the whole contract. This is very different from "if you breach one term, the contract is not considered breached".

It might be related to the fact that both Python and Mozilla were, at one point, owned by actual companies. The wording might be specific to specific concepts of commercial law that are not particularly relevant elsewhere.

Practically speaking, there is no such thing as “BSD-incompatible license”. The only problem here is license proliferation.

Anything that significantly restricts use isn't something that you can distribute as part of a BSD licensed system. The restrictions on that piece would need to be met by anyone using or redistributing the system, which is a significant departure from expectations.

Certainly, you can use GPL software with a BSD licensed system, and you can distribute GPL packages to be installed on a BSD licensed system, but if you include GPL software in a BSD system, it's no longer a BSD system.

Indeed, but it’s not license compatibility - in Open Source world that problem can only happen with GPL.

How is that not license compatability?

If the license prevents otherwise useful software from being used in the base system, what would you call it?

The term „license incompatibility” is used in situations where you cannot use of a different license in a single program. Usual example is incompatibility between GPL and anything that’s not a subset of GPL.

The situation here is different: it’s about distribution, and it’s up to you, the distributor, to decide whether you want to include restrictively licensed software or not. With license incompatibility, you don’t get that choice: you just cannot legally distribute it.

There's the joke I like the best: Perl looks the same before and after encryption.

If you give a Perl interpreter a Rorschach test, you might be surprised: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/05/pollack-perl.html