[9045] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2663 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Thu May 21 14:07:21 1998
Date: Thu, 21 May 98 11:01:38 -0700
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Thu, 21 May 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 2663
Today's topics:
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <kettenis@landau.phys.uva.nl>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Fergus Henderson)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Fergus Henderson)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Fergus Henderson)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Fergus Henderson)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Christopher Seawood)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (John Edstrom)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Fergus Henderson)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <hp@pobox.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Chris Russo)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Steve McNabb)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Chris Nandor)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Fergus Henderson)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Ken Fox)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <hp@pobox.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community ()
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <millNO@SPAMludd.luth.se>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Michael J Gebis)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community chris+usenet@netmonger.net
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Dave Barr)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 17:59:03 +0200
From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@landau.phys.uva.nl>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <s3i7m3fpqd4.fsf@landau.phys.uva.nl>
mrw@uiuc.edu (Matthew R. Williams) writes:
> chris+usenet@netmonger.net writes:
>
> > And you don't acknowledge the point of view that it is an insult to
> > call it "The Linux Operating System" even though it consists almost
> > entirely of GNU code.
>
> Ex-squeeze me?
>
> The kernel doesn't look like it's heavily influenced by GNU anything.
> Linus wrote that from scratch.
>
> And as far as the bells and whistles of an OS, silly things like
> bash, emacs, etc...well, shit. Some of that will compile for
> WinDoze boxes, won't it? So let's call Bill Gates and have him
> call his boxes GNU/Windows systems.
I would hardly say that the file- (ls, ...), text- (cat, ...) and
sh-utils (test, ...) are "bells and whistles". But more important the
Linux C library, which I would say is the most important system
component besides the kernel itself, is very much GNU (libc5 was based
on version 1 of the GNU C Library, and libc 6 *is* version 2 of the
GNU C Library, which of course will be explained as another attempt of
the FSF to take over Linux).
Mark
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:02:49 GMT
From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1j79$f6a$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
>Now, as to modification, why would screw with something counter to its
>author's intentions and wishes? That's evil.
So, does that mean that you think that Xemacs and egcs are evil?
I think it is much better to let the *public* decide on
the merits of the modifications.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:17:59 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1k3n$nn7$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In gnu.misc.discuss, Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> writes:
:But the kernel would have never existed without gcc and binutils.
None of which would have existed without Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson,
Brian Kernighan, and a bunch of other brilliant people, whom I notice
with dismay get very little credit these days.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:10:59 GMT
From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1jmj$fc5$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>
>In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD) writes:
>:However, you convince everyone that there is true freedom when people cannot
>:change what you have written.
>
>True freedom doesn't not involve coming to my home and trashing
>it just because you feel like it. I haven't seen rms freely posting
>any of his phone card numbers, credit cards numbers, or bank account
>numbers to the net lately so that we can all freely use them.
I don't want to get into a big debate about analogies, because
as someone already remarked this tends to be unproductive,
but let me point out the obvious flaws in your analogy.
Making modifications to a *copy* of your software, or your
documentation, or your house, is not the same as modifying
(or "trashing") the *original*. Similarly, money is not like
software or documentation, because it cannot be copied.
(Well, you can try, but they call that counterfeiting, and
I think you get about 20 years for it ;-)
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:23:55 GMT
From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1ker$fkv$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
fl_aggie@thepentagon.com (I R A Aggie) writes:
>In article <864syk5psm.fsf@coulee.tdb.com>, Russell Senior
><seniorr@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>+ You haven't addressed Barry Margolin's observation that if one
>+ modifies the code but can't modify the documentation, then the
>+ documentation is no longer accurate.
>
>There's this concept called 'addendum'...
My dictionary has an addendum. I never check it.
Why not? Because it is a pain. Chances are, if the word isn't in the
main dictionary, it won't be in the addendum anyway.
The same applies to software documentation. It is much
easier for users if all the documentation is in one place.
If it is not, then the documentation is less than optimal.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:17:49 GMT
From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1k3d$fih$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
jdporter@min.net (John Porter) writes:
>On Thu, 21 May 1998 01:24:08 GMT,
>in article <YmL81.48$152.468270@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>,
>barmar@bbnplanet.com (Barry Margolin) wrote:
>> But what if someone makes a modification to perl, and then wants to make a
>> corresponding modification to the documentation? Your prohibition against
>> modifying the documentation requires them to distribute *incorrect*
>> documentation.
>
>No, it doesn't.
>
>If someone wishes not to distribute documentation which is incorrect,
>but over which they do not possess the power to amend, then they
>should simply to stop disributing it.
OK, but then what would the users do for documentation?
Avoid this kind of situation is no doubt one of the major
reasons why the FSF want someone to write
free-in-the-FSF-sense documentation for Perl.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:31:31 GMT
From: cls@seawood.org (Christopher Seawood)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <DFY81.95$C06.963457@news.san.rr.com>
Paul D. Smith (psmith@baynetworks.com) wrote:
: OK, so Chris and Tom are upset that when RMS writes "free" in his posts,
: it doesn't mean what they think of as "free".
:
: But it appears to me that Tom's documents aren't free by _ANY_
: commonly-accepted definition of "free" in the software industry.
:
: They aren't free as in "public domain".
: They aren't free according to the BSD license.
: They aren't free according to the GPL.
: They aren't free according to the Artistic License.
: They aren't free according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
: They aren't free according to the Open Source Definition.
:
: It seems to me that _Tom_ is the one using the uncommon definition of
: "free", not RMS.
Each of the documents you posted refer to software which perl documents,
although in electronic format, are not. Even the GPL has a similar
no-modify copyright, so how can anyone behind the GNU project say that
the no-modify copyright is ok for the GPL but not for perl documentation?
Sounds a bit hypocritical, IMO.
(And just a nitpik, you missed the Qt free license which also has a no-modify
clause. And last I checked they were part of the software industry.)
Regards,
Christopher
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 18:42:09 +0200
From: Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <bypvh77ezi.fsf@bolzano.math.ethz.ch>
mrw@uiuc.edu (Matthew R. Williams) writes:
> > You mentioned the Camel book - that is a book from the evil O'Reilly
> > company (according to RMS). They are evil because they copyright their
> > books and don't give the rights to the FSF.
I am pretty sure RMS never used the frase evil.
> Taking the intellectual freedom argument and extending it to books
> is just plain stupid, because without copyrights, publishing and
> writing are no longer viable professions.
RMS just wants to have documentation that is under a similar licence
as the software it documents as that would be more convenient[1]. I think
we all can agree that it indeed would be convenient. Having very good
books availible for people to go out and buy takes away the motivation
for them to write documentation. Therefore RMS is trying to make
people aware of that fact, as usual his methods could have been more
tactfull.
Now it maybe well be that producing quality documentation like
O'Reilly and GPL style licences are incompatible. (This is what tom
is claiming since he (rightly IMHO) feels ripped off by people
reproducing his perlfaq for big bucks). However I am not sure that
question is already settled.
Jan (Proud owner of a Camel book BTW).
[1] So yes the same arguments does extend to books, at least in part
and not as well.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:50:02 GMT
From: edstrom@hmsc.orst.edu (John Edstrom)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1lvq$jck$1@news.NERO.NET>
In article <6k01mb$lpv$1@news.ro.com>,
cadams@ro.com (Chris Adams) writes:
...
> I don't think RMS will quit until every useable program in the world has
> been signed over the the FSF.
It sounds as if the Anti Gates is here. The End Days can not be far
behind.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:40:43 GMT
From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1leb$g0t$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
>It certainly is about an author's moral rights! They wish to give
>up my author's rights on my work. They think I'm being a mean old
>hoarder because I won't let them screw up my carefully worded prose.
>It's part of me. It's not an equation. It is my thoughts and feelings,
>my nuance. That's not theirs to destroy.
Code and documentation both have two roles: artistic and utilitarian.
By refusing to let others modify your work, you preserve the
artistic integrity of that work, but at the expense of making
the work less useful. That is of course your right, but you
should not complain when others strive to produce freely modifiable
works to supplement or replace yours, if yours do not meet their
needs.
Personally, I prefer to make my work available under a license that
makes it freely modifiable as well as freely available. I am not
afraid that people who modify it will "screw it up"; if they do, then
the original will still be freely available, and the public can judge
for themselves which is better.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:59:49 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <wsn4syja7ay.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
>
> In article <_bS81.68$152.620589@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>, Barry
> Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>
> # The GPL doesn't force you to share with your friends, it allows it.
>
> What an odd thing to say. Since when does something like sharing your own
> work with your friends need to be allowed? Does it allow me to cross the
> street without my mommy, too?
>
By default, copyright law prohibits sharing work. You must explicitly
state that redistribution is allowed, or it is legally assumed to be
prohibited.
So in the case of a copyrighted work, yes, sharing needs to be
allowed. This is true of any copyrighted work, and applies to the GPL,
BSD, X, Artistic, NPL, and any other license.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 19:02:27 +0200
From: Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <byn2cb7e1o.fsf@bolzano.math.ethz.ch>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
> I officially redefine "free" as meaning "provided with ketchup". Any
> other usage with me is misleading.
Putting all sillyness inside, the word 'free' in English does
have several meanings in english which lead to all this mess. While it
would haven be very much better if the FSF/RMS had not used such an
ambivalent term they just made precise which of the meanings of free
they meant and are consistent in using it in that way.
Of course that still gives problems when you start applying negatives
it as in "the perl documentation is not free" and read them without
the context.
However that still leaves me confused. Aren't the very extensive
manpages that come with perl 5 (with the exception of the faq maybe)
under the same licence as perl and therefore free in the Open
Source/FSF/DFSG sense?
Therefore the only explaination for the FSF todo-list entry must be
that it is so old that it predates perl 5.
Jan
P.S. I also cannot believe that tom could not have known that the FSF
is not about 'gratis' software but about 'open source'.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:08:22 -0700
From: news@russo.org (Chris Russo)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <news-2105981008220001@buzz.alink.net>
In article <p5som3br54.fsf@baynetworks.com>, psmith@baynetworks.com wrote:
>Fine. Create a license that's used by thousands of packages and
>hundreds of thousands of people, have it considered, argued over,
>etc. for 10 years, start an organization based on your interpretation of
>free, win a number of grants and other awards, become a recognized
>spokesperson, create many writings describing exactly what you mean and
>why you think it's the right thing and make them publicly available,
>etc.
Excellent work by RMS. It still doesn't mean that people in general will
automatically understand what you mean by "free".
I know that I was confused by the corrupted use of the word "free" when I
started reading this thread.
Why try to bend the English language to your group's wishes? Why not just
use the language correctly and be understood?
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
Chris Russo
news@russo.org
http://www.russo.org
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 17:06:18 GMT
From: smcnabb@interlog.com (Steve McNabb)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1mua$hm8$1@nntp2.uunet.ca>
In article <6k1ker$fkv$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fjh@cs.mu.oz.au says...
>
>>There's this concept called 'addendum'...
>
>My dictionary has an addendum. I never check it.
>Why not? Because it is a pain. Chances are, if the word isn't in the
>main dictionary, it won't be in the addendum anyway.
>
>The same applies to software documentation. It is much
>easier for users if all the documentation is in one place.
>If it is not, then the documentation is less than optimal.
>
Booooooo......Hisssssss
Sorry, but "i never bother to read the addendum" is possibly _the_ lamest of
the lame excuses for not reading the docs. If you can't be bothered to spend a
precious mouse click or a few keystrokes to find out the information, then
don't expect _anyone_ to spend an extra 15 seconds to make your life easier.
Try a little and maybe you'll find that people are a litte more willing to
accommodate you.
Welcome to my killfile :)
S
>--
>Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
>WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
>PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:15:44 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <pudge-2105981310030001@dynamic95.ply.adelphia.net>
In article <byn2cb7e1o.fsf@bolzano.math.ethz.ch>, Jan Vroonhof
<vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
# Of course that still gives problems when you start applying negatives
# it as in "the perl documentation is not free" and read them without
# the context.
And that is the key. FSF goes around telling people stuff like that, and
people don't know that IDNTIMWYTIM is in effect.
--
Chris Nandor mailto:pudge@pobox.com http://pudge.net/
MacPerl: Power and Ease (ISBN 1881957322), http://www.ptf.com/macperl/
%PGPKey = ('B76E72AD', [1024, '0824090B CE73CA10 1FF77F13 8180B6B6'])
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 17:09:28 GMT
From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1n48$gis$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
mrw@uiuc.edu (Matthew R. Williams) writes:
>chris+usenet@netmonger.net writes:
>
>> And you don't acknowledge the point of view that it is an insult to
>> call it "The Linux Operating System" even though it consists almost
>> entirely of GNU code.
>
>Ex-squeeze me?
>
>The kernel doesn't look like it's heavily influenced by GNU anything.
>Linus wrote that from scratch.
>
>And as far as the bells and whistles of an OS, silly things like
>bash, emacs, etc...well, shit. Some of that will compile for
>WinDoze boxes, won't it? So let's call Bill Gates and have him
>call his boxes GNU/Windows systems.
Actually, you can get binaries of bash, gcc, etc. for Windows.
They're distributed as part of a package called, gee, "GNU-Win32".
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:49:31 GMT
From: kfox@pt0204.pto.ford.com (Ken Fox)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1lur$l262@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> Klaus.Schilling@home.ivm.de writes:
> : ... GNU/Linux system ...
>
> Oh stop this silliness. It's Linux. Adding the word "GNU" is an
> insult.
That opinion isn't very consistent with your idea of authorship. The
GNU/Linux issue has been thoroughly beat to death, but here's my
understanding of the events:
The FSF works on a "GNU System" (Unix clone) for a decade.
Linux is released as basically a "GNU System" with a different kernel.
The FSF starts taking serious heat for "wasting" time on the Hurd and
the development of the "GNU System."
RMS asks Linus if he can call Linux "GNU/Linux."
Linus says ok.
The term "lignux" appears in an emacs release, which everybody agrees
is stupid, and which is later changed to "GNU/Linux."
People who don't like RMS or the FSF hate putting "GNU" in the Linux
name because it recognizes the contribution of the FSF in building
Linux, so a flame war errupts.
The flame war doesn't resolve anything, but it clearly shows that there
is no such thing a "a" free software community.
Linux has a *lot* of GNU software in it. It doesn't *have* to be
called "GNU/Linux," but that seems like a nice recognition of the
GNU Project. It's important to remember that not every Linux system
is a GNU system. If somebody ships the Linux kernel with an otherwise
BSD system, the name should probably be "BSD/Linux."
How is this feeling much different from the feelings towards recognition
of your own work? You said:
Tom Christiansen:
> But if you steal it and change it and remove my name and copyright
> and then say its yours and sell it for your profit *AS HAS BEEN DONE
> REPEATEDLY TO ME*, then I *shall* see you in a court of law. I promise.
> I will not write anything that anyone can do that with every again.
> I won't even let you come close. I've been raped before, but not again.
If your project wrote the C compiler, the C library, most of /usr/bin,
etc. and then somebody else came along, added a kernel and slapped their
name on it, what would you do? (Yes this is an exageration, but to
claim the GNU project or RMS is evil also exagerates things.)
- Ken
--
Ken Fox (kfox@ford.com) | My opinions or statements do
| not represent those of, nor are
Ford Motor Company, Powertrain | endorsed by, Ford Motor Company.
Analytical Powertrain Methods Department |
Software Development Section | "Is this some sort of trick
| question or what?" -- Calvin
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:15:41 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <wsnzpgb8s02.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
>
> Bundling the FAQ with the complete distribution is of course perfectly
> fine -- and mandatory. I'm talking about people putting my FAQ in their
> own books and charging for it. That I won't stand for. If you want to
> distribute the FAQ *unbundled*, you must not charge more that it cost
> you to copy it.
>
What I don't understand is what this has to do with the FSF or
GPL. You keep complaining about people using your docs in other works,
but the FSF wants to write their own docs, not use yours. What's wrong
with that? Don't they have a right to do so?
IMO it won't happen anyway; it's on the task list but it's such a
large task for so little gain, and the free docs will never be as good
as the regular ones. No one is going to do it.
I have one of your books, and lots of other O'Reilly books, and like
everyone I really like them. But I think you O'Reilly/Perl guys need
to relax just a little. I know RMS can be infuriating, but it's kind
of childish to go on about Evil and not invite him to the free
software summit and so on. He does get lots of software written, and
he does not steal your software or docs, though he may ask you to
donate them that is his right, just as it's your right to refuse.
Live and let live, acknowledge that you have differences, get past
that. At least ignore RMS rather than trying to antagonize him.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:40:31 GMT
From: eriehl@atnbob.oit.unc.edu ()
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <slrn6m8ekm.boi.eriehl@atnbob.oit.unc.edu>
On 21 May 1998 17:46:48 +0200, Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> wrote:
>
>But the kernel would have never existed without gcc and binutils.
>
>-Andi
I think I have the answer. Write GPLed software that does useless things
rather than useful things. Then nobody that writes software intended not
to be GPLed will use it.
--Eric Riehl
Isn't the strategy that if enough people who are thankful they got free
software return the favor by producing free software, that there will be
a large body of free software that does many useful things?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:42:04 +0200
From: Olof Oberg <millNO@SPAMludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3564676C.1A1C6CCB@SPAMludd.luth.se>
Ken Fox wrote:
[snip]
> Why all this talk of virii?
Because work derived from GPLed work becomes GPLed too. So
then 'people' put the virus label on GPL to spread FUD. Sorta
like calling people politically correct. We all 'know' PCs
are somehow bad and therefore if we iterate it often enough
it has an impact on their appearence.
/mill
--
#############################################################
# millNO@SPAMludd.luth.se # http://pedgr571.sn.umu.se/~mill #
#############################################################
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 17:22:45 GMT
From: gebis@albrecht.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael J Gebis)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1nt5$oa3@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>
jwe@bevo.che.wisc.edu (John W. Eaton) writes:
}It's sad to see someone for whom I've had a lot of respect suddenly
}start flaming like this. What snapped?
Suddenly?
--
Mike Gebis gebis@ecn.purdue.edu mgebis@eternal.net
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 17:35:21 GMT
From: chris+usenet@netmonger.net
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1okp$i0q$1@schenectady.netmonger.net>
In article <m2g1i3y761.fsf@bigglesworth.isdn.uiuc.edu>,
Matthew R. Williams <mrw@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> chris+usenet@netmonger.net writes:
>
> > And you don't acknowledge the point of view that it is an insult to
> > call it "The Linux Operating System" even though it consists almost
> > entirely of GNU code.
>
> Ex-squeeze me?
>
> The kernel doesn't look like it's heavily influenced by GNU anything.
> Linus wrote that from scratch.
Apparently you don't know what an operating system is.
--
Christopher Masto <chris+usenet@netmonger.net>
Director of Operations, NetMonger Communications, Inc.
"Behold the Power of Cheese"
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 19:38:38 +0200
From: Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <byiumz7cdd.fsf@bolzano.math.ethz.ch>
smcnabb@interlog.com (Steve McNabb) writes:
> Sorry, but "i never bother to read the addendum" is possibly _the_ lamest of
> the lame excuses for not reading the docs. If you can't be bothered
> to spend a
Well that arguments fails if there are 1001 addenda. Moreover the
problem is that unless you remember what it is in it you must always
read the addendum since what you just read in the main doc could well
be invalidated by it.
It could be that we would have to live with that in order to have any
documentation at all, but that is still an open question I think.
Jan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 17:54:19 GMT
From: barr@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dave Barr)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1pob$v0$1@news.cis.ohio-state.edu>
In article <6k1leb$g0t$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>,
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> wrote:
>By refusing to let others modify your work, you preserve the
>artistic integrity of that work, but at the expense of making
>the work less useful.
That may be arguably true for documentation, but not for source code.
Perl is more useful for everyone because you can use it in a commercial
product, unlike GNU software (modulo source code distribution games).
Certainly the people who use Perl in their commercial world don't get
"scared off" by the GPL had they been using GNU code.
This is precisely the confusion in the word "free".
RMS's definition of "free software" is "free-source-license-only software".
Many people in the "free software" movement don't really care that much
about RMS's mission of "infect all the world with GNU code and eventually
the whole world will be free", and view free software as simply
"no-cost-source", perhaps with restrictions on use, modification (Perl),
or credit (BSD).
There is more to the "free software" movement than RMS and GNU.
I liken this discussion to the incredibly devisive bill that the
US passed a while back threatening sanctions against any government
that had trade relations with Cuba. Pracically the whole world got
seriously pissed off with the US. In the same way people in the
free sofware community are pissed off at RMS for suggesting that
the only path to "free software" is to force you to give up your
ownership rights to your code, and forcing people who want to use
your code to abide by its "free-only" restrictions. Not everyone
wants to have their code restricted like this.
--Dave
--
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~barr/
barr@cis.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------
Date: 8 Mar 97 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
the single line:
subscribe perl-users
or:
unsubscribe perl-users
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.misc (and this Digest), send your
article to perl-users@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
The Meta-FAQ, an article containing information about the FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users meta-faq". The real FAQ, as it
appeared last in the newsgroup, can be retrieved with the request "send
perl-users FAQ". Due to their sizes, neither the Meta-FAQ nor the FAQ
are included in the digest.
The "mini-FAQ", which is an updated version of the Meta-FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users mini-faq". It appears twice
weekly in the group, but is not distributed in the digest.
For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V8 Issue 2663
**************************************
