[9052] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2670 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Thu May 21 19:07:24 1998
Date: Thu, 21 May 98 16:00:30 -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: 2670
Today's topics:
Clearly define "free software" (Christopher Seawood)
Re: Finding Holidays (Steffen Beyer)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Matthew R. Williams)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Dave Barr)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Matthew R. Williams)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Matthew R. Williams)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community rjk@greenend.org.uk
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Stuart McDow)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <palincss@tidalwave.net>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <hp@pobox.com>
Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function (Abigail)
Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function (Greg Bacon)
Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function (Steffen Beyer)
Re: LABOR CRISIS: Perl SW Guru NEEDED MA Intranet Start <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: LABOR CRISIS: Perl SW Guru NEEDED MA Intranet Start (Mike Heins)
Re: LABOR CRISIS: Perl SW Guru NEEDED MA Intranet Start (Stuart McDow)
Re: LABOR CRISIS: Perl SW Guru NEEDED MA Intranet Start (Stuart McDow)
Re: More double standards out of the FSF (Matthew R. Williams)
Re: More double standards out of the FSF <sbo@nortel.ca_NO_SPAM>
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit <hp@pobox.com>
Re: Why NOT crypt??? (Stuart McDow)
Re: Why NOT crypt??? (Ilya Zakharevich)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 22:11:27 GMT
From: cls@seawood.org (Christopher Seawood)
Subject: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <jE191.242$C06.1181736@news.san.rr.com>
robert havoc pennington (hp@pobox.com) wrote:
: 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.
There is plenty of reason to believe that most of the audience won't
get it. When you ask someone their definition of free, most likely they
will give you one of the standard dictionary definitions. Since the
FSF's definition of free does not encompass every dictionary definition
of free, when people refer to "free software" and they really mean
"FSF's definition of free software", they should clearly state so.
>From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html,
"Free software is software that comes with permission for anyone to use,
copy, and distribute, either verbatim or with modifications, either
gratis or for a fee. "
Now that pretty much fits my definition of free software. However, GPL
software does not fall under this heading, IMO. Why not? Because GPL
software restricts what you can _use_ the software with. I am not free
to _use_ (compile & link, in this case) GPL software with propreitary
libraries. So according to the above definition, GPL software is not
"free software as defined by the FSF".
Yes, I know everyone claims that the GPL is there to "protect" software
and to "liberate" it. But what they fail to see is that by adding the
restriction that all software that is used (compiled & linked) with
GPL software must also be GPL, they remove an element of freedom from
the software therefore do not meet the defintion of "free software as
defined by the FSF."
If by "use", the FSF means something differently than compiling and
linking, perhaps they should clearly state what they mean. Until such
time, I will have to maintain that either
1) the definition of "free software as defined by the FSF" is ambigious
(and for all practical purposes, useless)
or
2) that software under the GPL is not "free software as defined by the FSF."
If someone can logically (as opposed to religiously) come up with another
explanation, I'd like to hear it.
IMO, what FSF defines as "free software", really seems to be "open
source". I say this because immediately after they define "free
software", they say
"In particular, this means that source code must be available. ``If it's
not source, it's not software.'' "
Regards,
Christopher
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 21:37:40 GMT
From: sb@engelschall.com (Steffen Beyer)
Subject: Re: Finding Holidays
Message-Id: <6k26r4$hcv$2@en1.engelschall.com>
Peter Cheimets <pcheimets@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Is there a perl program or subroutine that given a date will determine
> if it is a holiday, or a program that will return a list of the holiday
> dates for a given year?
You will probably have to roll your own, but you'll get lots of assistance
in that task by either Date::Manip or Date::Calc from CPAN.
Look at http://www.perl.com/CPAN/modules/by-module/Date/.
HTH.
Yours,
--
Steffen Beyer <sb@engelschall.com>
Free Perl and C Software for Download: www.engelschall.com/u/sb/download/
"Perl is like sex: If you never had it, you wonder what the fuss is all
about. Once you had it, you never want to be without it again." (unknown)
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 17:05:48 -0500
From: mrw@uiuc.edu (Matthew R. Williams)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m21ztn1dqb.fsf@bigglesworth.isdn.uiuc.edu>
Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> writes:
> 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.
>
> But the kernel would have never existed without gcc and binutils.
So? There are a number of tools that were used to build my car, but
it's just an Oldsmobile.
The whole point of TOOLS is that you use them to build something. Certainly,
you can rejoice in the glory that your tools are great, and 'tis a poor
craftsman who blames his tools, but dude...seriously. Using a tool does
not make that tool inherently responsible for the existence of a product.
After all, Linus could have gone out to buy a commercial C compiler, no?
--
It's psychosomatic.
You need a lobotomy.
I'll get a saw.
-Calvin
"Calvin and Hobbes", by Bill Watterson
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew R. Williams mrw@uiuc.edu
Geek of All Trades http://bigglesworth.isdn.uiuc.edu/~mrw/
---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 22:09:01 GMT
From: barr@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dave Barr)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k28lt$64v$1@news.cis.ohio-state.edu>
In article <6k22d5$anb$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>,
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> wrote:
>For example, if I couldn't modify Linux, I never would have been able
>to turn down the ridiculously loud beep on my old PC, and thus
>my poor housemates would have been woken up by beeps at odd hours!
>For another example, if I couldn't modify the Boehm (et al) garbage
>collector, so that I could port it to LinuxThreads, then we wouldn't be
>able to make full use of our SMP hardware. The ability to modify
>source code is undeniably useful.
Nothing in any source copyright/license/whatever I've seen prevents you from
doing this. They only restrict you in distributing those changes to
others.
--Dave
--
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~barr/
barr@cis.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 17:10:19 -0500
From: mrw@uiuc.edu (Matthew R. Williams)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2zpgbz35g.fsf@bigglesworth.isdn.uiuc.edu>
chris+usenet@netmonger.net writes:
> 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.
Actually, I do. Funny, every time people disagree about semantics on
this group, they accuse the other person of either ignorance or lying.
But people seem to be defining an "operating system", in this case, as
being damned near everything that's compiled and installed on a box.
Nobody's been ridiculous enough to add in mailers and shit, but it's
inevitable. (What's the FSF mailer, btw?)
But as this whole thing is semantics here, it doesn't really matter.
Ergo, I'm going to define an OS as "a kernel, with mustard and/or
ketchup."
--
Sleeping together also makes America less dependent on foreign oil,
less likely to be victimized by some foreign despot, less likely
to go to war. Those who sleep together are doing more for America
than those who hog a bed all to themselves. So if you consider
yourself any kind of patriot at all, you'll sleep with somebody
tonight.
-Bill Hall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew R. Williams mrw@uiuc.edu
Geek of All Trades http://bigglesworth.isdn.uiuc.edu/~mrw/
---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 22:05:01 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k28ed$j68$3@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
psmith@baynetworks.com writes:
:As I've posted numerous times to this thread already, the whole issue of
:"using examples places your code under the GPL" is purely FUD.
:Copyright law allows this. There is no problem with it (unless, I
:suppose, the examples are pages long or something).
Hold up. You mean that GPL'd coding solutions, like lifting a subroutine,
taken from the Perl docset do not upon their inclusion in your program
infect it with the GPL? Really? If so, that's wonderful, but I am
not following your reasoning. How is this different from lifting a
subroutine from a GPL'd program? What does it matter whether the GPL'd
object from which the subroutine was taken is a program versus a document?
I really don't understand. And I'd like to.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 17:11:00 -0500
From: mrw@uiuc.edu (Matthew R. Williams)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2yavvz34b.fsf@bigglesworth.isdn.uiuc.edu>
Olof Oberg <millNO@SPAMludd.luth.se> writes:
> Matthew R. Williams wrote:
> > 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.
> How many use the Linux kernel without those 'silly' things?
> Gotta be a wonderful experience and oh so productive.
>
> /mill
Shells are for whimps.
--
Every now and then when your life gets complicated and the
weasels start closing in, the only cure is to load up on
heinous chemicals and then drive like a bastard from Hollywood
to Las Vegas ... with the music at top volume and at least a
pint of ether.
-Hunter S. Thompson
"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew R. Williams mrw@uiuc.edu
Geek of All Trades http://bigglesworth.isdn.uiuc.edu/~mrw/
---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 19:10:36 +0100
From: rjk@greenend.org.uk
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <wwvwwbffqar.fsf@sfere.greenend.org.uk>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> writes:
>> If I can't modify it it is not free.
>
> I beg to differ with you. You are hurting our community. Please
> stop the lies.
A thing that might plausibly hurt the free software community is when
people start referring to differences of opinions as "lies".
Personally I can quite cope with people having subtly different
definitions of free (whether they are closer to `without cost' or
`liberated' or whatever) without resorting to emotive personal
accusations.
It'd help a lot if people stated what they meant by free in the
context of this kind of discussion. Personally I think that the
freedom to produce derived works is important, both to add features
and to correct bugs. Contacting the original author may not work -
they may be busy or uncontactable for any number of reasons. One day
they'll die.
In the GPL, section 2a - less than a quarter of the way through! -
requires anyone who distributes a modified version of the work to make
it clear that they modified it. It also requires an appropriate
copyright notice on the modified version.
These two requirements combined would make it clear that credit was
due to the original author, but that they were not responsible for
errors introduced by others.
Tom apparently requires something stronger. And that's fine by me -
his work, his decision. As it happens, it's not what *I* would call
free, and I doubt I'm alone in this.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 22:23:48 GMT
From: smcdow@arlut.utexas.edu (Stuart McDow)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k29hk$2gn$1@ns1.arlut.utexas.edu>
Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra <leandro@lge.com.br> writes:
> Tom Christiansen in gnu.misc.discuss wrote:
> > 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?
Haven't they already contributed to the community by fostering the use
and acceptance of free software? I think that is more to the point. In
that matter, ORA has contributed much.
--
Stuart McDow Applied Research Laboratories
smcdow@arlut.utexas.edu The University of Texas at Austin
"Look for beauty in roughness, unpolishedness"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:28:06 -0700
From: Steve Palincsar <palincss@tidalwave.net>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3564E2B6.2340@tidalwave.net>
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>
> In comp.lang.perl.misc, Russell Senior <seniorr@teleport.com> writes:
> :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.
>
> If someone modifies the code to make it behave differently than the
> standard release, it is no longer Perl and they may not distribute it
> under the same name. If they modify the code and Perl still works the
> same way, then there is no need to change documentation.
>
Since the easy & accepted way to modify the behavior of perl 5
is through modules, which can have their own documentation,
credit, copyright, etc., why is this even a subject of
discussion? And wasn't getting to this point what the entire
perl 5 effort was about?
Steve Palincsar
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 22:00:02 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k2852$j68$2@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com> writes:
:Why not add a line of clarification to your
:docs, saying "you may distribute this in any case where you may
:distribute perl"?
I hadn't realized that that was not understood to be the case. I will
certainly add something like that. But I will exempt it from the GPV.
I want free documentation, not encumbered viral stuff.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 22:21:56 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <wsnhg2j8dtn.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
>
> In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com> writes:
> :Why not add a line of clarification to your
> :docs, saying "you may distribute this in any case where you may
> :distribute perl"?
>
> I hadn't realized that that was not understood to be the case. I will
> certainly add something like that. But I will exempt it from the GPV.
> I want free documentation, not encumbered viral stuff.
>
I don't know if that's understood or not, you seemed to be saying
people didn't understand and thus were distributing perl without docs.
I'm just suggesting a solution to that.
Note that your license doesn't allow the situation where the GPL
would be "viral" (modification, use in derived works), so there's
no way it could be viral. So no need for an "exemption," whatever that
means.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 22:19:34 GMT
From: abigail@fnx.com (Abigail)
Subject: Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function more elegant/efficient?
Message-Id: <6k299m$jgm$1@client2.news.psi.net>
Mark-Jason Dominus (mjd@op.net) wrote on MDCCXXIV September MCMXCIII in
<URL: news:6k21vk$6k9$1@monet.op.net>:
++
++
++ There's always the fighting-without-fighting approach:
++
++ %is_leap = map {($_ => 1)} (1201 .. 2399);
This should be
%is_leap = map {(4 * $_ => 1)} (401 .. 799);
++ map {$is_leap{$_*100} = 0} (13..15, 17..19, 21..23);
++
++ sub is_leap {
++ $is_leap{$_[0]};
++ }
++
++ You know, this whole exercise seems like a waste of time. Who cares
++ if your leap year function is efficient? Is it a bottleneck?
sub is_leap {!((grep {$_ [0] % $_} (4, 100, 400)) % 2);}
Abigail
--
perl -pwle '$_ .= reverse'
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 22:03:30 GMT
From: gbacon@cs.uah.edu (Greg Bacon)
Subject: Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function more elegant/efficient?
Message-Id: <6k28bi$48p$2@info.uah.edu>
In article <6k21vk$6k9$1@monet.op.net>,
mjd@op.net (Mark-Jason Dominus) writes:
: But there's a rule that we could adopt that is simpler
: than the Gregorian system *and* more accurate.
kill $my, @calendar and die;
:-)
--
open(G,"|gzip -dc");$_=<<EOF;s/[0-9a-f]+/print G pack("h*",$&)/eg
f1b88000b620f22320303fa2d2e21584ccbcf29c84d2258084
d2ac158c84c4ece4d22d1000118a8d5491000000
EOF
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 21:34:57 GMT
From: sb@engelschall.com (Steffen Beyer)
Subject: Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function more elegant/efficient?
Message-Id: <6k26m1$hcv$1@en1.engelschall.com>
Fritz Knack <fritz.knack@nospam.POPULUS.net> wrote:
> I compacted this one as much as *I* could, but I couldn't help but
> wonder if there was a "better way" or something that may use an idiom
> with which I'm not familiar.
> I'm not terribly worried about detecting past leap years; in
> particular, the year we started using the Gregorian calendar doesn't
> matter in the context in which this function lives. Given that, a leap
> year is any year divisible by 4 unless it's a 100 year, in which case
> it must also be divisible by 400. (1800, 1900, 2100, 2200 aren't leap
> years, but 2000 is.)
> #---------------------------------------------
> sub is_leap {
> my $year = shift;
> return (
> !($year % 4) &&
> (!($year % 100) ? !($year % 400) : 1)
> );
> }
> #---------------------------------------------
> Thoughts and comments are welcome.
> Thanks, Fritz
boolean DateCalc_leap_year(Z_int year)
{
Z_int yy;
return( ((year AND 0x03) == 0) and
( (((yy = (Z_int) (year / 100)) * 100) != year) or
((yy AND 0x03) == 0) ) );
}
That makes one division instead of three.
Yours,
--
Steffen Beyer <sb@engelschall.com>
Free Perl and C Software for Download: www.engelschall.com/u/sb/download/
"Perl is like sex: If you never had it, you wonder what the fuss is all
about. Once you had it, you never want to be without it again." (unknown)
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 21:55:36 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: LABOR CRISIS: Perl SW Guru NEEDED MA Intranet Start-up 80K+>+Equity
Message-Id: <6k27so$j68$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
scott@softbase.com writes:
:5 years experience or MORE? With Perl?
Sure, why not? Some of us are working on our eleventh year
of Perl programming.
:OO Perl has only been
:around about a year.
Um, 5.000alpha1 came out in 1993-Jul-31. It's changed since
then, but I really don't think you should say just one year of OO.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 18:44:17 -0500
From: mikeh@minivend.com (Mike Heins)
Subject: Re: LABOR CRISIS: Perl SW Guru NEEDED MA Intranet Start-up 80K+>+Equity
Message-Id: <3564ae41.0@news.one.net>
In comp.lang.perl.modules Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
> In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> scott@softbase.com writes:
> :5 years experience or MORE? With Perl?
> Sure, why not? Some of us are working on our eleventh year
> of Perl programming.
I am in year 5, and I am a "newbie". ( Sorry, Tom. 8-)
> :OO Perl has only been
> :around about a year.
> Um, 5.000alpha1 came out in 1993-Jul-31. It's changed since
> then, but I really don't think you should say just one year of OO.
Which incidentally is just about the time the first public
demonstration of Mosaic was made. Things move fast these days.
Mike Heins
--
Internet Robotics
There ain't nothin' in this world 131 Willow Lane, Floor 2
that's worth being a snot over. Oxford, OH 45056
--Larry Wall <mikeh@minivend.com>
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 22:37:59 GMT
From: smcdow@arlut.utexas.edu (Stuart McDow)
Subject: Re: LABOR CRISIS: Perl SW Guru NEEDED MA Intranet Start-up 80K+>+Equity
Message-Id: <6k2ac7$4js$1@ns1.arlut.utexas.edu>
scott@softbase.com writes:
>
> PS: Anyone with 5+ years experience with Perl would be a senior
> systems administrator somewhere by now, not looking to hook on with
> some fly-by-night startup!
Depends on your definition of senior, but no matter. The subject line
says it all: *equity* in the company (as opposed to stock
options). That'd be a pretty strong inducement for me.
The position sounds like it would require lots and lots of long
work-weeks, though. That works more to dissuade me than any amount of
equity could induce me to work there.
--
Stuart McDow Applied Research Laboratories
smcdow@arlut.utexas.edu The University of Texas at Austin
"Look for beauty in roughness, unpolishedness"
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 22:54:59 GMT
From: smcdow@arlut.utexas.edu (Stuart McDow)
Subject: Re: LABOR CRISIS: Perl SW Guru NEEDED MA Intranet Start-up 80K+>+Equity
Message-Id: <6k2bc3$78g$1@ns1.arlut.utexas.edu>
smcdow@arlut.utexas.edu (Stuart McDow) writes:
> The subject line says it all: *equity* in the company (as opposed to
> stock options).
Bah. It must be time for me to quit posting to the usenet. The body of
the posting says stock options, not equity. I consider these two
different things. Stock options are a dime a dozen these days, and
only valueable if you stick around long enough to collect. I thought
they were offering an up-front stake in the company.
My mistake. Two in one day.
--
Stuart McDow Applied Research Laboratories
smcdow@arlut.utexas.edu The University of Texas at Austin
"Look for beauty in roughness, unpolishedness"
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 17:13:29 -0500
From: mrw@uiuc.edu (Matthew R. Williams)
Subject: Re: More double standards out of the FSF
Message-Id: <m2u36jz306.fsf@bigglesworth.isdn.uiuc.edu>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> Check out http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html, where you
> will see a remarkably similar copyright to mine:
>
> Copyright 1997, 1998 Richard Stallman
> Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted without royalty as
> long as this notice is preserved.
>
> I guess only Richard is allowed to use that kind of copyright.
> I wish I were that special.
Would you really want to modify that document and claim any of
RMS's bizarre, insane ranting as your own?
--
The rise of technology has necessitated a return to ritual... That
doesn't mean that technology shouldn't be utilized by the artist,
only that it should be at the service of humanity and not vice versa.
I think any artist working now has to take advantage of the technological
advances of the past hundred years and use them creatively.
-Keith Haring
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew R. Williams mrw@uiuc.edu
Geek of All Trades http://bigglesworth.isdn.uiuc.edu/~mrw/
---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 18:26:32 -0400
From: Stephane Boucher <sbo@nortel.ca_NO_SPAM>
Subject: Re: More double standards out of the FSF
Message-Id: <9xolnrvclbb.fsf@bcarsf26.dpn>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> You cannot "modify" Perl in some way to make it not work like the standard
> release and still call it by that name.
I could be mistaken, but I think you can...
I grap perl-5.001.tar.gz, and here are the things that I do to comply
with each and every "wish" listed in the Artistic licence (I use the
Artistic licence distributed with perl-5.001l.tar.gz). Each following
number correspond to the wish of the Artistic licence of the same
number.
1. I'm changing things, so my distribution is not a verbatim copy. I
comply.
2. fixes: no fix. COMPLY
3. modify in any way if you do at least one...
I change the language such that s/// becomes m///, and m//
becomes s//.
I clearly indicate the changes that I have made in all
modified files.
I post those modifications as public domain on some perl
newsgroup in the form of diffs of the .o's of the changed files.
COMPLY (because I did 3.a)
4. distribute ... if at least one...
I distribute perl-5.001-bin.tar.gz which contains all the executable
with names identical to perl-5.001.tar.gz. I continue to call my
distribution as the standard Perl release. I also include the first
perl-5.001.tar.gz standard version executables and source files.
COMPLY (because I did 4.a)
I also include the diffs mentionned in (3). That means I also did 4.b,
because the diffs are "machine-readable source" (there isn't a
definition for that so I can give it whichever definition I want)
5. I charge nothing, so I comply
6. My changes do not involve scripts. Comply
7. My changes do not involve supplying additionnal subroutines. I just
change existing ones. COMPLY.
It should also be noted that subroutine is not defined.
8. I don't aggregate, so I COMPLY.
It should however be noted that "commercial distribution" is not
defined. But could it mean that I cannot aggregate Perl with a
piece of software that I sell that has the source code in the
public domain?
And "Package's interfaces" is also not defined...
9. I don't use the Copyright Holder's name, so I comply.
10. AS IS ... not really a wish, but comply.
I therefore have a Standard Perl package, which I'm now one of the
"Copyright Holder".
Ok, now where did I go wrong with this?
--
,
Stephane Boucher, ing sbo@nortel.ca
- NORTEL - Tel: (613)763-9778
Bell-Northern Research / Recherches Bell-Northern
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:59:49 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: <wsniumz8eui.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
> I wrote:
> # 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.
>
Well, I told you I'd be happy to use a footnote on comp.lang.perl.misc
in the future. But I think it's dumb on the GNU web site, where "free"
is used hundreds of times, for every such usage to have a
footnote. The main page has a link to the definition, and since the
organization is called "Free Software Foundation" you'd think people
would consider it important and read 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.
>
Oh bullshit. Perl certainly doesn't have a popularity problem, and if
it does it's not coming from some obscure comment on www.gnu.org. As
you say yourself, most readers of comp.lang.perl.misc probably don't
visit www.gnu.org.
> # 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.
>
Whatever. I think you're pretty out there saying failure to footnote
every use of the word is reckless misinformation, but it's only my
opinion. Others will disagree.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 21:58:11 GMT
From: smcdow@arlut.utexas.edu (Stuart McDow)
Subject: Re: Why NOT crypt???
Message-Id: <6k281j$rps$1@ns1.arlut.utexas.edu>
Brian Mathis <brianm@kodak.com> writes:
>
> Please don't respond to posts for which you have no correct
> information to offer.
Sorry, my mistake. I was reading too quickly. No need to be
patronizing.
--
Stuart McDow Applied Research Laboratories
smcdow@arlut.utexas.edu The University of Texas at Austin
"Look for beauty in roughness, unpolishedness"
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 22:22:23 GMT
From: ilya@math.ohio-state.edu (Ilya Zakharevich)
Subject: Re: Why NOT crypt???
Message-Id: <6k29ev$68k$1@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to Brian Mathis
<brianm@kodak.com>],
who wrote in article <3564A11F.613E2D5F@kodak.com>:
> 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.
This point is debatable. IANAL, but I saw no convincing arguments
that crypt() is exportable under the current law. Thus my OS/2 port
of Perl comes without it.
(And if you know cryptography - I do not - you know that all you need
for crypto is strong hashing - having strong crypt() you may build
a cryptosystem on it).
Ilya
------------------------------
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 2670
**************************************
