[9051] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2669 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Thu May 21 18:07:26 1998
Date: Thu, 21 May 98 15:00:29 -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: 2669
Today's topics:
Re: .= food for thought? (Jens Quade)
Re: Determining data types using Win32::ODBC (Steve Linberg)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Steve McNabb)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <leandro@lge.com.br>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <leandro@lge.com.br>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <hp@pobox.com>
Re: Help! setting MODE for mkdir() (Juergen Heinzl)
Re: Help! setting MODE for mkdir() <rootbeer@teleport.com>
hv_fetch_ent & refcount <jll@skynet.be>
Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function (Craig Berry)
Re: LABOR CRISIS: Perl SW Guru NEEDED MA Intranet Start <ebohlman@netcom.com>
Re: More double standards out of the FSF <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
Re: Perl 6 <br@ndon.com>
Re: scope of variables in Perl under Linux <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Security? <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Security? <ebohlman@netcom.com>
Re: Security? <brianm@kodak.com>
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit (Chris Nandor)
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit <hp@pobox.com>
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit (Chris Nandor)
Re: Why NOT crypt??? <brianm@kodak.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 21:38:16 GMT
From: jens-slrn-tests-1998-05@ronja.dinoco.de (Jens Quade)
Subject: Re: .= food for thought?
Message-Id: <slrn6m96pg.82b.jens-slrn-tests-1998-05@sahne.m19.intern>
On 21 May 1998 18:56:43 GMT, Belg4mit <belg4mit@aol.com> wrote:
> Why doesn't Perl have a .= ? Seems like ot would be rather useful.
Perl has a .= : my ($foo)='foo'; $foo .= 'bar'; works perfectly.
> By that same token, why not =. ?
The mismatch of them would just be another frequently
mistake in my programs.
jens
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:34:02 -0400
From: linberg@literacy.upenn.edu (Steve Linberg)
Subject: Re: Determining data types using Win32::ODBC
Message-Id: <linberg-2105981734020001@projdirc.literacy.upenn.edu>
In article <01bd8156$4f8c3080$5e5992c6@senspro>, "Dmitri Budchenko"
<dmitri-b@usa.net> wrote:
> Is there any way to determine data types of fields in Access database
> operated through Win32::ODBC? If not, can it be done programmatically
> (analyze the kind of information stored)?
Yes you can. All the documentation you need is in the Win32::ODBC
package. There is a call to get a list of the fields, and you can
determine their SQL types programmatically.
_____________________________________________________________________
Steve Linberg National Center on Adult Literacy
Systems Programmer &c. University of Pennsylvania
linberg@literacy.upenn.edu http://www.literacyonline.org
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 21:22:41 GMT
From: smcnabb@interlog.com (Steve McNabb)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k25v1$ih7$1@demon.uunet.ca>
In article <p5af8bbhtv.fsf@baynetworks.com>, psmith@baynetworks.com
says...
>
>%% smcnabb@interlog.com (Steve McNabb) writes:
>
> sm> 2) The GPV does, in fact, make it a violation to copy-and-paste
> sm> code from examples (ummmmm -- that's the whole _point_ of code
> sm> examples!) into a program that is sold for profit.
>
> sm> ...etc etc etc...
>
>Um, no. Not even close.
>
>The GPL does _NOT_, in fact, make it a violation to copy-and-paste code
>from examples into _anything_: that right is gauranteed by the "fair
>use" articles of copyright law. Please go read the Berne Conventions
>and other similar docs; the WIPO web site is a good place to start.
>
>Second, even if the GPL _did_ contain such a restriction, the licensing
>of the GPL has absolutely _NOTHING_ to do with selling for a profit:
you
>are perfectly free to make a profit on any program you like regardless
>of how much GPL'd code is in it.
>
Hmm....well, this may be a mis-fire on my part, but it was my
understanding that by GPL'ing something, you essentially made it "free
for free use" -- thus if you wanted to use GNU stuff "in whole or in
part" (including code snippets) that's fine, but try to make commercial
software with it, and you violate the terms of the liscence. If this is
not the case, my most humble apologies to yourself, FSF, GNU, and anyone
else who I may have inadvertantly misrepresented. (oops :)
I had another look at the GPL, but this is still a little hazy -- could
someone perhaps shed some light on this?
Steve
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> Paul D. Smith <psmith@baynetworks.com> Network Management
Development
> "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad
Scientist
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> These are my opinions--Bay Networks takes no responsibility for
them.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:54:06 -0300
From: Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra <leandro@lge.com.br>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3564865E.B795E0CB@lge.com.br>
Tom Christiansen in gnu.misc.discuss wrote:
>
> In comp.lang.perl.misc, chris+usenet@netmonger.net writes:
> :RMS believes that his style of free software and his licensing system
> :are the best way to do good for the computing community. Is he not
> :allowed to have this opinion? He is mad at O'Reilly because they sell
> :a lot of books about GNU software but they don't donate anything to
> :the FSF.
>
> I don't be ridiculous. O'Reilly has done more for free software than
> FSF has even begun to acknowledge. (I sense a pattern here.) If those
> books didn't exist, the programs would be deemed less "real" by users,
> and thus less used.
This is not the point. Chris point was about GNU s/w, not free in
general.
> If a consultant helps a client with free
> software, should he then be obligated to tithe the Great Church
> of Cambridge? If someone writes a book and sells it about free software,
> must they too tithe the Great Church of Cambridge? Absolutely not.
They are not required to, that's the point of copyleft. But they
should contribute to the free s/w community, shouldn't they?
--
Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra
http://www.lge.com.br./ leandro@lge.com.br
http://www.terravista.pt./Enseada/1989/ BRASIL
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:49:13 -0300
From: Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra <leandro@lge.com.br>
To: Chris Adams <cadams@ro.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <35648539.B0D4D338@lge.com.br>
Chris Adams wrote:
> >: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.
> >
> >That's certifiably insane, and if that were really the FSF's view, I would
> >move that Perl -- and all free software -- disassociate itself from GNU.
>
> I've heard the above in several places, but I should have qualified it
> and said that I've not tried to verify it. After the Linux debacle, I
> pretty much have not paid attention to the political ramblings of RMS
> and the FSF.
Whoever said it was grossly misrepresenting. The FSF does not want to
*own* the copyrights: it wants everything copylefted -- it it can be
GPL'd, better; it it can only be free, that's good enough, but copyleft
should be the goal.
Now, you -- or whomever told you such things -- seem to thing GPL'd to
mean FSF-owned. No. I can write anything and GPL it, and the copyright
belongs to me, not to FSF. Just as using BSD style licensing does not
give my work to Berkeley...
--
Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra
http://www.lge.com.br./ leandro@lge.com.br
http://www.terravista.pt./Enseada/1989/ BRASIL
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:51:34 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <wsnk97f8f89.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
smcnabb@interlog.com (Steve McNabb) writes:
>
> Hmm....well, this may be a mis-fire on my part, but it was my
> understanding that by GPL'ing something, you essentially made it "free
> for free use" -- thus if you wanted to use GNU stuff "in whole or in
> part" (including code snippets) that's fine, but try to make commercial
> software with it, and you violate the terms of the liscence. If this is
> not the case, my most humble apologies to yourself, FSF, GNU, and anyone
> else who I may have inadvertantly misrepresented. (oops :)
>
What it says is that if you use it in your own software, you have to
put your own software under GPL terms. This allows you to sell your
software, but you have to let other people copy and sell it as well,
so many commercial companies are not comfortable with it, though some
are because they mostly sell support or consulting.
Thus GPL code can be used commercially, but not if your business model
depends on the code being "proprietary." This is why the FSF says
"proprietary" rather than "commercial," and thinking of the two as
distinct is helpful for understanding what the GPL requires.
The examples-in-docs issue apparently has some additional "fair use"
aspect, which is not related to the GPL in particular but has to do
with copyright law and applies to all licenses. You would probably
need to consult a lawyer to see how these laws apply to you.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 20:59:18 GMT
From: juergen@unicorn.noris.de (Juergen Heinzl)
Subject: Re: Help! setting MODE for mkdir()
Message-Id: <slrn6m95e2.gi.juergen@unicorn.noris.de>
In article <6k226s$p12$1@camel25.mindspring.com>, John Zenyuh wrote:
>I'm trying to create several directories at run-time
>and I would like to establish the following permissions:
>
> drwxrwxr-x dirname
>
>I would appreciate any hints on setting the MODE
>argument for the mkdir() function. Apparently the
>octal sequence 0775 doesn't work like it does for
>the cmd line 'chmod'. Running umask() from the
>cmd line returns 022 -- new directories are automatically
>created as drwxr-xr-x. (I don't know if this has any
>impact.)
Yes, but ...
$umask = umask ();
umask (0);
mkdir $dirname,0775;
umask ($umask);
... does the job.
Bye, Juergen
--
\ Real name : Juergen Heinzl \ no flames /
\ EMail Private : unicorn@noris.de \ send money instead /
\ Phone Private : +49 911-4501186 \ /
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:09:19 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: John Zenyuh <jzenyuh@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Help! setting MODE for mkdir()
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980521140814.16724R-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Thu, 21 May 1998, John Zenyuh wrote:
> I would appreciate any hints on setting the MODE
> argument for the mkdir() function.
If you're getting the mode as a string (say, from the command line) you
will almost certainly want the oct() function. Hope this helps!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:59:48 +0200
From: Jean-Louis Leroy <jll@skynet.be>
Subject: hv_fetch_ent & refcount
Message-Id: <VA.0000005f.00dbd4db@enterprise>
Hello,
I'm trying to use a XSUB to implement a STORE method for a tied hash.
Later the hash will contain weak references, but right now I'm just
trying to emulate the behavior of a straight hash. It goes like:
package WeakRef::Hash;
sub new
{
my %h = ();
tie %h, shift, @_;
return \%h;
}
sub TIEHASH
{
my $pkg = shift;
$self = bless { @_ }, $pkg;
}
One uses a WeakRef::Hash like this:
$h = WeakRef::Hash->new();
$h->{$id} = $obj;
Here's the XSUB:
MODULE = WeakRef::Hash PACKAGE = WeakRef::Hash
SV*
STORE(self, key, val)
SV* self
SV* key
SV* val
CODE:
HE* he = hv_fetch_ent(SvRV(self), key, 1, 0);
if (he)
{
SvREFCNT_dec(HeVAL(he));
SvREFCNT_inc(val);
SvREFCNT_inc(val);
HeVAL(he) = val;
}
RETVAL = val;
OUTPUT:
RETVAL
This *seems* to work, at least for the tests I've run thus far. From
what I've read (perlguts, perlxstut, perlxs and 'Advanced Perl
Programming') I need to increment the refcount of the value once. When
I do that, however, perl complains about an "Attempt to free
unreferenced scalar".
I stored an object in the tied hash that reports when it's destroyed. I
seem to have confirmed that the double SvREFCNT_inc(val) doesn't
produce a leak.
I also tried to find out whether the second SvREFCNT_inc(val) was
needed because the XS returns one of its arguments. The tests I've
tried seem to suggest No. But if it were Yes, I'd need to move one of
the inc's out of the if (he) block I suppose...
Can anybody help me understand? TIA...
Jean-Louis Leroy
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jl_leroy/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:07:20 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: Mark-Jason Dominus <mjd@op.net>
Subject: Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function more elegant/efficient?
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980521140643.16724Q-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On 21 May 1998, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
> Now is the perfect time to institute this change. The switchover will
> be easy: This rule coincides with the Gregorian rule until 2012, so we
> have 13.5 years to change all our software. (2013 is a leap year in
> the Dominus Calendar, so we'd have to have everything changed by
> then.)
Is Perl Y2013 compatible? :-)
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 21:24:08 GMT
From: cberry@cinenet.net (Craig Berry)
Subject: Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function more elegant/efficient?
Message-Id: <6k261o$o0g$2@marina.cinenet.net>
Tom Phoenix (rootbeer@teleport.com) wrote:
: On 21 May 1998, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
:
: > Now is the perfect time to institute this change. The switchover will
: > be easy: This rule coincides with the Gregorian rule until 2012, so we
: > have 13.5 years to change all our software. (2013 is a leap year in
: > the Dominus Calendar, so we'd have to have everything changed by
: > then.)
:
: Is Perl Y2013 compatible? :-)
Only versions 4.036 and earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
--*-- Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
| Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/
"Every man and every woman is a star."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:46:17 GMT
From: Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: LABOR CRISIS: Perl SW Guru NEEDED MA Intranet Start-up 80K+>+Equity
Message-Id: <ebohlmanEtBtt5.5IF@netcom.com>
[dead comp.lang.perl removed, followups restricted to c.l.p.m]
scott@softbase.com wrote:
: You wanna know why there's a so-called "labor crisis"?! Here it is:
[snip]
: Holy smokes! This ad is so specific and detailed what are the odds
: it will ever be filled? The "labor crisis" is a big hoax.
Actually, the odds are great that it will be filled, soon. The usual
reason an employer places an extremely specific and detailed ad is that
they already have a specific candidate in mind, but there's some policy
or legal reason that they have to advertise the position anyway (the
legal reason is usually that the candidate is a foreign national and they
have to document that they can't find a citizen or permanent resident
who's qualified to do the work). The usual response to this demand is to
write the requirements to match the preferred candidate's background as
closely as possible. I suspect that the startup in question is hoping
that nobody will respond.
The other day I saw an ad for what appeared to be a run-of-the-mill
senior programmer position. In addition to requiring 4+ years of
experience, it required a degree from one of the top 5 CS schools! I'm
sure the same thing was going on there.
(if this were a long-established company rather than a startup, another
possibility would have been that the ad was written by an HR type who had
little knowledge of the computer field, but that's not likely in this case).
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:41:46 -0500
From: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
Subject: Re: More double standards out of the FSF
Message-Id: <m3emxn7145.fsf@biff.bitsko.slc.ut.us>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> In comp.lang.perl.misc, Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us> writes:
> :Maybe it will need to be clarified if _any_ of the documentation
> :can be modified to reflect changes in the modified code.
>
> You cannot "modify" Perl in some way to make it not work like the
> standard release and still call it by that name.
Note, I had said ``renamed'' in that context.
FWIW, I've since clarified it for myself. Unless stated otherwise,
Perl can be redistributed and/or modified under the terms of either
the GNU GPL or the Artistic License, as stated in Perl's README.
There are several docs in the Perl distribution that state that they
must be copied verbatim. Which, of course, means that they may not be
modified even if the code they document is modified in an allowed
manner.
So that doesn't need to be clarified any further :-)
What's confusing, but not necessarily unclear, is that one *can*
include ``must be copied verbatim'' files in packages otherwise
covered by GNU GPL or other licenses meeting the Open Source
definition.
Which brings up a really interesting point: if a distribution wants to
say ``*all* parts of this distribution meet the Open Source
definition'' [emphasis mine], then it's they will either have to be
more explicit about some files that do not meet the Open Source
definition or not include ``must be copied verbatim'' files. Hence,
the Debian folks need to be concerned about a lot more packages than
just Perl.
In the end, though, there's still going to be that gray area between
what is prose and what is documentation which will always lead to
disagreements over what documents should be modifyable when the code
is modified in an allowed manner.
--
Ken MacLeod
ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:49:33 -0400
From: "Brandon L. Golm" <br@ndon.com>
Subject: Re: Perl 6
Message-Id: <3564935D.2CA860CF@ndon.com>
KevinCohen wrote:
>
> it's been said (by paul hoffman) that "the changes [from perl 4 to perl 5] make
> it so that there will probably never be a perl 6."
>
> true??? or is creating perl 6 what larry wall is up to all day at o'reilly?
I think Larry plays with Java.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:23:33 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: Nathan Morse <nmx@ResourceInternational.com>
Subject: Re: scope of variables in Perl under Linux
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980521141004.16724S-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On 21 May 1998, Nathan Morse wrote:
> Subject: scope of variables in Perl under Linux
Why "under Linux" and not "In South Dakota"? :-)
> After a bit of hunting and debugging, I realized that the problem was
> that @words was empty/undefined outside of init_words(), where it is
> created, but not via my().
That is, it's a global variable - so it's not full of data until after
init_words is called. Is that what you're seeing?
My copy of the Llama seems to be omitting a couple of lines from the sub
init_words on page 22 and following pages. As written, it requires the
file to be modified more than seven days ago, rather than less. (It was
fixed on page 29, but that uses a different technique.) So I'm copying
this to the ORA folks. But is that the problem you're having?
It may not be what you need, but a good explanation of using my() is in
the perlsub manpage. Hope this helps!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:27:10 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: Scott Vetter <svetter@ameritech.net>
Subject: Re: Security?
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980521142505.16724T-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Thu, 21 May 1998, Scott Vetter wrote:
> Just was wondering if a web host runs a Perl program, I take it the
> web host handles the security and not Perl?
*Everyone* is responsible for security! :-)
But you probably want to see the WWW security FAQ and the CGI security
FAQ, to get started. Hope this helps!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:53:27 GMT
From: Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Security?
Message-Id: <ebohlmanEtBu53.5z2@netcom.com>
Scott Vetter <svetter@ameritech.net> wrote:
: Just was wondering if a web host runs a Perl program, I take it the
: web host handles the security and not Perl?
Depends on what you mean by "the security." Web servers usually run CGI
scripts as a special users (often "nobody") with very limited
privileges. But that only protects the server itself from security
problems; it's up to the author of the script to privide security for his
own files and the like. For example, a badly-written guestbook script
can allow outsiders to delete the guestbook. The perlsec manpage has a
lot to
say about how to keep security holes out of your programs, CGI or not.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:51:49 -0400
From: Brian Mathis <brianm@kodak.com>
To: svetter@ameritech.net
Subject: Re: Security?
Message-Id: <3564A1F5.73AC73F9@kodak.com>
[posted and emailed]
Scott Vetter wrote:
>
> Just was wondering if a web host runs a Perl program, I take it the
> web host handles the security and not Perl?
Please be more descriptive with your posts. "Security" can cover a wide range
of topics. What are you asking about, specifically? While you're at it, define
"security". Most people just throw the word around without thinking about what
it means, or what they need to apply it to.
Brian Mathis
--
$_="
,.,,,.,,.,,.,,,,..,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,..,..,,.,,,,,,,,,
";s/\s//gs; tr/,./05/; @a=split(//); $_=<DATA>; tr/~`'"^/0-4/;map{$o.=
$a[$i]+$_;$i++} split(//); map{$o[++$#o]=substr($o,$j,3);$j+=3}@a;map{
print chr($_)}@o; __DATA__ # Brian Mathis, Just another perl hacker.
~'^``'``~```~"'~^'``~```````~^`~```^~"'``'`~```^`~"~"'`~^~^'~^^`~'`~```^~`~
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:04:33 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <pudge-2105981658520001@dynamic95.ply.adelphia.net>
In article <rjvhqz5xri.fsf@zuse.+dina.kvl.dk>, Per Abrahamsen
<abraham@dina.kvl.dk> wrote:
# So please stop claiming the FSF is lying. That is itself a lie, and
# by spreading lies like that you are hurting the free software community.
When they go outside of their tiny little circle, it is intentional or
careless deception, which is the pretty much the same as lying.
Just as if I said McDonald's hamburgers were free for the asking. Knowing
full well my definition of free (provided with ketchup) is not accepted
outside of myself, to say that is a lie, unless I fully qualify it.
Does that mean that every time they say something that could potentially
be taken to mean the common definition of the word "free" and not their
own special defition, and there is a high probability that someone might
read it and misunderstand it, that they need to fully qualify it? YES.
It is not hard. In usenet discussions, reference the link as you did. On
web pages, make a hyperlink from the word "free" to that page. There, now
you have gone from being irresponsible to responsible (as far as the usage
of the word is concerned). And it wasn't that hard.
But since FSF are the ones changing the definitions, it is incumbent on
them to make it clear what they mean to the rest of the world.
--
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: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:23:39 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <wsnlnrv8gis.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
>
> In article <rjvhqz5xri.fsf@zuse.+dina.kvl.dk>, Per Abrahamsen
> <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> wrote:
>
> # So please stop claiming the FSF is lying. That is itself a lie, and
> # by spreading lies like that you are hurting the free software community.
>
> When they go outside of their tiny little circle, it is intentional or
> careless deception, which is the pretty much the same as lying.
>
But the statement at issue IS NOT OUTSIDE THEIR TINY LITTLE CIRCLE
until Tom C. brought it up on comp.lang.perl.misc.
It is in their own newsletter/task list or whatever.
You suggest a hyperlink everytime anyone says "free" and means it in
the GNU sense. This is plain silly, IMO, unless there's reason to
believe most of the audience won't get it. You may disagree,
but the vehemence of your disagreement is in my mind a little bit
laughable. It is not a big issue.
It is certainly not the same as spreading lies on purpose, or
purposely telling people the perl documentation licenses are different
than they are. Especially when anyone with any sense will read the
licenses for themselves and/or consult a lawyer before distributing
the material.
You and Tom C. are the ones picking a fight. You dug up some obscure
comment on the FSF web page and blamed misunderstanding of the perl
documentation license terms on that, rather than the perl
documentation's license. This was done in a very adversarial and
confrontational way, from the start. At least, that's how it appears
from here, though you may have spoken with RMS privately beforehand or
something.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:42:12 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <pudge-2105981736310001@dynamic95.ply.adelphia.net>
In article <wsnlnrv8gis.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>, robert havoc pennington
<hp@pobox.com> wrote:
# pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
# >
# > In article <rjvhqz5xri.fsf@zuse.+dina.kvl.dk>, Per Abrahamsen
# > <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> wrote:
# >
# > # So please stop claiming the FSF is lying. That is itself a lie, and
# > # by spreading lies like that you are hurting the free software community.
# >
# > When they go outside of their tiny little circle, it is intentional or
# > careless deception, which is the pretty much the same as lying.
# >
#
# But the statement at issue IS NOT OUTSIDE THEIR TINY LITTLE CIRCLE
# until Tom C. brought it up on comp.lang.perl.misc.
# It is in their own newsletter/task list or whatever.
Which is posted publicly on their web server.
# You suggest a hyperlink everytime anyone says "free" and means it in
# the GNU sense. This is plain silly, IMO, unless there's reason to
# believe most of the audience won't get it.
First, it should be a consideration if there is a good chance ANY number
of people won't get it. Regardless, in this discussion, in
comp.lang.perl.misc, I have EVERY reason to think that MOST of the people
will NOT get it.
# You may disagree,
# but the vehemence of your disagreement is in my mind a little bit
# laughable. It is not a big issue.
It is a big issue. People are turning away from perl because of
misinformation like this.
# It is certainly not the same as spreading lies on purpose
No, it is spreading misinformation recklessly, which is just as bad.
Recklessness is just as bad as malicious intent.
--
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: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:48:15 -0400
From: Brian Mathis <brianm@kodak.com>
To: Stuart McDow <smcdow@arlut.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: Why NOT crypt???
Message-Id: <3564A11F.613E2D5F@kodak.com>
[posted and emailed]
Stuart McDow wrote:
> It wasn't implemented because going to jail is a Bad Thing.
>
> --
> Stuart McDow Applied Research Laboratories
Please don't respond to posts for which you have no correct information to
offer.
The original poster is talking about the 'crypt()' function, NOT "encryption".
crypt() has been around for (I'm guessing) as long as UNIX itself. It is not
illegal, unexportable, or anything else. It is simply a one way hashing
algorithm in which you cannot "decrypt". This is what is used for UNIX password
security.
"Encryption", on the other hand, is the use of digital technology to hide data
for later retrieval. Some forms of this are restricted by the US government
export laws.
Brian Mathis
--
$_="
,.,,,.,,.,,.,,,,..,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,..,..,,.,,,,,,,,,
";s/\s//gs; tr/,./05/; @a=split(//); $_=<DATA>; tr/~`'"^/0-4/;map{$o.=
$a[$i]+$_;$i++} split(//); map{$o[++$#o]=substr($o,$j,3);$j+=3}@a;map{
print chr($_)}@o; __DATA__ # Brian Mathis, Just another perl hacker.
~'^``'``~```~"'~^'``~```````~^`~```^~"'``'`~```^`~"~"'`~^~^'~^^`~'`~```^~`~
------------------------------
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 2669
**************************************
