[9055] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2672 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Thu May 21 21:09:36 1998
Date: Thu, 21 May 98 18:01:43 -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: 2672
Today's topics:
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Michael Schuerig)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <leandro@lge.com.br>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <rra@stanford.edu>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (le Fanttme)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <rra@stanford.edu>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (le Fanttme)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (le Fanttme)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <agulbra@troll.no>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <agulbra@troll.no>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Paul Eggert)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <harman@omsi14.omsi.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Christopher Browne)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Christopher Browne)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <leandro@lge.com.br>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:19:19 +0200
From: schuerig@acm.org (Michael Schuerig)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <1d9ehis.rmln781s253pcN@rhrz-isdn3-p59.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>
Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
> 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.
How about a script that patches the addendum into the original
documentation on the fly...
SCNR,
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:schuerig@acm.org
http://www.uni-bonn.de/~uzs90z/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:15:02 -0300
From: Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra <leandro@lge.com.br>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3564B576.7B71878E@lge.com.br>
Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Well, he kept working on it anyway (obviously). Eventually, the GNU
> people came back, and wanted to take credit for a lot of the system.
> Where's the Hurd? The dream of a free operating system finally came
> true in the form of Linux, despite some GNU people telling us it was
> useless.
>
> If Richard Stallman had wanted to enforce credit, he should have put it
> in the license (like in the BSD license). He did not, and so he has no
> right to demand credit.
Hmmm... how can you know what's inside someone's head? AFAIK, "GNU
people" wanted credit for the GNU tools which constitute the major part
of the OS. Linux is only the kernel. If today the kernel is bigger and
there are many more tools, in the beginning of Linux most distributions
came with 60-80 percent of GNU s/w.
Remember, Linux is the kernel. The OS is, perhaps, 40% the kernel and
60% tools -- GNU tools. If you add the compilers, things get still
clearer. Compilers and the libc are arguably more important than the
kernel itself, since they provide the environment thru which C userland
programs communicate with the kernel.
No, I'm not an expert. No, these numbers do not intend to be exact
proportions. Yes, this was already stated in www.gnu.org and you should
read it instead of attributing bad intentions to people.
> Again, he wrote the license (which by the way has the same "no modify"
> clause that Tom's prose has). If he didn't want people to profit from
> his work, he should have written a different license. O'Reilly is one
> example of how a company can succeed working with GPL software.
The license obviously can't be modified, if it could it would be
useless. Obviously everyone is free to make a GPL-derived license and
call it by the name they want. Only that you can't call it GPL (that
would be necessarily confusing) and you can't sell it: a license isn't a
work, it is a legal statement, if you want to sell legal statements
you'd better be a lawyer.
If the license is not the work, s/w and docs are. And if you'd only
read www.gnu.org, you'd learn FSF does have nothing against people
making profits. We all would feel better if, besides making profits,
ORA would permit us to copy and enhance their docs, even if later it
collected everything we enhanced and published as a 2nd edition. ORA
could even use a MPL-like license to make sure everyone could copy,
distribute and enhance its docs, but only ORA could sell it for a
profit!
Question: does ORA contributes to FSF? Or it only profits from GNU
without ever giving something back? This isn't forbidden, but it would
stink.
--
Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra
http://www.lge.com.br./ leandro@lge.com.br
http://www.terravista.pt./Enseada/1989/ BRASIL
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:26:02 -0700
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m3emxnryt1.fsf@windlord.Stanford.EDU>
In comp.lang.perl.misc, le Fanttme <fantome> writes:
> One wouldn't need to write all your own documentation. One would be able
> to write an addendum which describes the differences, which would be
> sufficient.
Actually, a previous discussion of this very topic resulted in someone
making the entirely valid point that should a free software project fork,
such as emacs and xemacs, having the documentation not be freely
modifiable would cause some major problems. Imagine if all the
differences between xemacs and emacs had to be described in an addendum.
However, Perl isn't forked.
Personally, I've always found the habit the FSF (or perhaps RMS in
particular) have of putting things on the project list to make political
points even though existing alternatives that work but are just subideal
in some way are available to be rather questionable. I think Tom has
legitimate reason to be upset here, although I highly doubt anything's
going to come out of this.
Except, perhaps, that Perl may no longer be distributed under the GPL. If
that was RMS's goal, he very well may get it. All in all, it was an
*extremely* bad political move.
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -- Russ Allbery, Just Another Perl Hacker
$^=q;@!>~|{>krw>yn{u<$$<[~||<Juukn{=,<S~|}<Jwx}qn{<Yn{u<Qjltn{ > 0gFzD gD,
00Fz, 0,,( 0hF 0g)F/=, 0> "L$/GEIFewe{,$/ 0C$~> "@=,m,|,(e 0.), 01,pnn,y{
rw} >;,$0=q,$,,($_=$^)=~y,$/ C-~><@=\n\r,-~$:-u/ #y,d,s,(\$.),$1,gee,print
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:31:57 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <9983779A395F0C3F.386E2D433E337D64.7BBCE5F58F6F2610@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On Thu, 21 May 1998 13:24:57 GMT, jdporter@min.net (John Porter)
wrote:
>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.
Or provide a second document which indicates changes that you have
made to your version of the perl language and runtime.
You just can't make your new documentation in Mr. Christiansen's
document.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fantome*@*vnet*.*net * http://fantome.vnet.net/
---------------* aziegler*@*vcela*.*com * -------------------------
Remove the stars to email me * Ni bhionn an rath ach
my words my opinions my ideas * mar a mbionn an smacht
-- I Argue Ideas, Not Beliefs: Give Up Your Dogma --
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:33:47 -0700
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m390nvryg4.fsf@windlord.Stanford.EDU>
In comp.lang.perl.misc, Klaus Schilling <Klaus.Schilling@home.ivm.de> writes:
> Once the guile regexp handling is powerful enough, there won't be any
> need for perl in GNU-grown stuff anymore. Even the whole perl could one
> day be emulated from within guile, the powertool of the gnu
> generation. As far as I remember, perl is nowadays only needed for
> automake.
Is this an ivory tower I see before me?
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -- Russ Allbery, Just Another Perl Hacker
$^=q;@!>~|{>krw>yn{u<$$<[~||<Juukn{=,<S~|}<Jwx}qn{<Yn{u<Qjltn{ > 0gFzD gD,
00Fz, 0,,( 0hF 0g)F/=, 0> "L$/GEIFewe{,$/ 0C$~> "@=,m,|,(e 0.), 01,pnn,y{
rw} >;,$0=q,$,,($_=$^)=~y,$/ C-~><@=\n\r,-~$:-u/ #y,d,s,(\$.),$1,gee,print
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 23:40:29 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2e1d$qd6$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra <leandro@lge.com.br> writes:
: Question: does ORA contributes to FSF? Or it only profits from GNU
:without ever giving something back? This isn't forbidden, but it would
:stink.
Question: does FSF contributes to ORA? Or does it only profit from ORA's
legitimizing of free software without ever giving something back to ORA?
This isn't forbidden, but it would stink.
--tom
--
str->str_pok |= SP_FBM; /* deep magic */
s = (unsigned char*)(str->str_ptr); /* deeper magic */
--Larry Wall in util.c from the perl source code
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:01:37 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <5B4437067D4883BF.F247A222F514B48C.A4BDAE187CFF1E56@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On Thu, 21 May 1998 20:04:35 GMT, robert havoc pennington
<hp@pobox.com> wrote:
>Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:>
>> In comp.lang.perl.misc,
>> robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com> writes:
>> :the free docs will never be as good
>> :as the regular ones.
>> Please, please stop repeating this miscarriage of truth.
>> The Perl documentation are free. They always have been.
>> They always will be.
>Would it help if I said,
>"Your perl docs are free of cost"
>and
>"Your perl docs are not free according to the definition given on
> www.gnu.org or www.opensource.org"
>?
IMO, documentation should not necessarily be "free" according to those
definitions because of the possibility for publication in hardcopy
books (or CD document collections) which may end up denying an author
the royalties sie is due.
>I think you already knew what I meant. There is no reason we should
>have to use these cumbersome phrases, certainly not on
>gnu.misc.discuss which is a FSF newsgroup.
If you'll note, according to Tom you were posting in
comp.lang.perl.misc (you were posting in both, but he's obviously
reading from clpm). Really, IMO, the FSF should give up its silly
confusing of "free" and just use the term "open source", but the
Prophet has spoken and doesn't want to do that.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fantome*@*vnet*.*net * http://fantome.vnet.net/
---------------* aziegler*@*vcela*.*com * -------------------------
Remove the stars to email me * Ni bhionn an rath ach
my words my opinions my ideas * mar a mbionn an smacht
-- I Argue Ideas, Not Beliefs: Give Up Your Dogma --
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:09:39 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <B0CDD1B14CA6563B.35948734F15BF76E.4430E2937D0CD4A1@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 21 May 1998 14:32:40 -0400, psmith@baynetworks.com (Paul D. Smith)
wrote:
> cs> (And just a nitpik, you missed the Qt free license which also has
> cs> a no-modify clause. And last I checked they were part of the
> cs> software industry.)
>
>The Qt license is not "common"--is there anything but Qt itself released
>under it? (note KDE isn't, for example.)
>
>Likewise, I didn't put up the MPL, either, even though Tom's documents
>aren't free according to the MPL.
Actually, I think that Tom's documents would be free according to the
MPL (with slight modification). Changes to Tom's documents should be
sent to Tom for modification and not done oneself (it is his
responsibility, for example, to make sure that they are weaved in to a
cohesive and comprehensive whole). However, you are not prohibited
from making changes in separate files, just as the MPL requires.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fantome*@*vnet*.*net * http://fantome.vnet.net/
---------------* aziegler*@*vcela*.*com * -------------------------
Remove the stars to email me * Ni bhionn an rath ach
my words my opinions my ideas * mar a mbionn an smacht
-- I Argue Ideas, Not Beliefs: Give Up Your Dogma --
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 02:10:23 +0200
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <agulbra@troll.no>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m3iumzdv2o.fsf@lupinella.troll.no>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
> 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.
<IANAL><REALLY><I-MEAN-IT> You can lift a brief excerpt from a larger
work, whether that larger work is a program or a textual document.
Fair use. I don't know about any legal precedent for how much code
you can lift and call it fair use, but I've seen people say "up to
10-20 lines".</></></>
The preceding appears to imply that if a a seven-line example in the
perl docs is seen as merely part of the document, you can copy it.
But if it is seen as an independent but embedded work, similarly to
the way a poem is independent of an anthology, you cannot.
Perhaps the gnu.misc.discuss regulars know about some precedent
somewhere regarding this?
--Arnt
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 02:12:56 +0200
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <agulbra@troll.no>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m3g1i3duyf.fsf@lupinella.troll.no>
schuerig@acm.org (Michael Schuerig)
> How about a script that patches the addendum into the original
> documentation on the fly...
What you mean is a script that builds a keyword index, or a database
for a search engine, or something of the sort.
grep will easily look through the 101 addendums mentioned earlier.
--Arnt
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:19:08 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <0w391.91$152.968093@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <6k2e1d$qd6$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>Question: does FSF contributes to ORA? Or does it only profit from ORA's
>legitimizing of free software without ever giving something back to ORA?
>This isn't forbidden, but it would stink.
FSF is non-profit, so how can it profit from ORA?
The FSF has contributed software to the community, providing things for ORA
to write books about. I'll bet ORA also uses some GNU software in their
operations. What other kind of contribution are you suggesting the FSF
might make to ORA? They're not a charitable organization, so they don't
expect anyone to just hand them checks for nothing (not that the FSF has a
whole lot of money to give); I'm reminded of a segment of "TV Nation" where
Michael Moore went to various big companies and tries to give them cash
donations, and they wouldn't take them.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:25:00 -0700
From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2d4c$9tf$1@shade.twinsun.com>
barr@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dave Barr) writes:
>Be careful with the word "use" here. You can't use GNU code in
>your commercial, proprietary stuff,
You've said that multiple times, but it's not true.
Several commercial, proprietary products use GNU code --
with the source available.
It's not just Red Hat; it's also software+hardware systems like
Whistle's Interjet <http://www.whistle.com/products/> and
our Netio <http://www.twinsun.com/prod_netio.html>.
Larger companies are also starting to do this sort of thing, e.g.
Corel's VNC <http://www.corel.com/news/1997/october/vnc.htm>.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 17:10:39 -0700
From: Harmanjit Singh <harman@omsi14.omsi.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <xfg67izw4g0.fsf@omsi14.omsi.com>
>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew R Williams <mrw@uiuc.edu> writes:
Matthew> chris+usenet@netmonger.net writes:
Matthew> But people seem to be defining an "operating system", in
Matthew> this case, as being damned near everything that's
Matthew> compiled and installed on a box. Nobody's been
Matthew> ridiculous enough to add in mailers and shit, but it's
Matthew> inevitable. (What's the FSF mailer, btw?)
Your language is certainly not of the high standard expected
on Gnu newsgroups. It seems you are angry. Cool down.
The FSF newsreader, Gnus, written by Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen,
is the greatest MUA in existence. A large number of people use it.
Though I would forgive you for not knowing about it. It is a work of
art, and free. (and it comes with a puny little editor of the FSF
which has somekind of scripting language I think).
Ever wonder how I attribute your text like this?
Matthew> Ergo, I'm going to define an OS as "a kernel, with
Matthew> mustard and/or ketchup."
Don't conclude a serious discussion with such statements. A
kernel, by itself, is a very important but unusable part of the OS.
You need, first of all, a development system, even to compile
the kernel. The development system and the high quality environment
(bash and emacs) on GNU/Linux is by, guess who?
--
With Warm Regards, | Open Management Software Inc.
Harmanjit Singh. | 5600 Mowry School Rd., #180, Newark CA 94560, USA.
| Ph: 1-510-360-1107, Fax: 1-510-360-1112
| Email: harman@omsi.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:27:34 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <WD391.92$152.968093@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <5B4437067D4883BF.F247A222F514B48C.A4BDAE187CFF1E56@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>IMO, documentation should not necessarily be "free" according to those
>definitions because of the possibility for publication in hardcopy
>books (or CD document collections) which may end up denying an author
>the royalties sie is due.
If the documentation author has made his documetation free, he's not
expecting royalties, no matter what form it's published in. Why should
royalties be due for hardcopy books when they're not expected for
electronic copies?
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:31:09 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <hH391.93$152.968093@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <m3iumzdv2o.fsf@lupinella.troll.no>,
Arnt Gulbrandsen <agulbra@troll.no> wrote:
><IANAL><REALLY><I-MEAN-IT> You can lift a brief excerpt from a larger
>work, whether that larger work is a program or a textual document.
>Fair use. I don't know about any legal precedent for how much code
>you can lift and call it fair use, but I've seen people say "up to
>10-20 lines".</></></>
IANAL either, but I believe the fair use exceptions also specify the
purposes you can use those excerpts for. These include educational
purposes and critiquing (this is what allows book reviewers to quote a
paragraph from the book), but I don't think embedding in another computer
program would fall into any of the categories.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 00:39:40 GMT
From: cbbrowne@news.hex.net (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2hgc$6dg$4@blue.hex.net>
And it's real interesting that if anything truly *horrendous* starts
happening, there are increasing numbers of possible alternatives to FSF
developments:
- TenDRA as an alternative to GCC
- XEmacs as alternative to GNU Emacs
- The "FreshMeat" web site lists an Objective C "preprocessor" rather
like CFRONT
- People have been using BYACC rather than Bison for *years* due to the
oft-cited licensing restrictions on Bison output. (Yes, I know that
it's not supposed to be an issue anymore.)
RMS can only say so many "horrendously controversial" things before
people start tuning him and his work out.
--
"Even more amazing was the realization that God has Internet access. I
wonder if He has a full newsfeed?" (By Matt Welsh)
cbbrowne@hex.net - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 00:39:41 GMT
From: cbbrowne@news.hex.net (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2hgd$6dg$5@blue.hex.net>
On 21 May 1998 14:58:01 GMT, chris+usenet@netmonger.net
<chris+usenet@netmonger.net> wrote:
>In article <6k1b7a$l3c@bourbon.cs.umd.edu>,
>William C. Cheng <william@cs.umd.edu> wrote:
>> Isn't what O'Reilly is doing in line with the spirit of GPL? May be the
>> irony is just too much!
>
>It complies with the GPL, as the GPL doesn't say anything about what
>you must do if you write a book about a GPL'd program. The point is
>that when you start to make a lot of money doing so, the FSF will
>(quite naturally) hope that you make a donation. If you don't, they
>will (quite naturally) say "If you want to support the FSF, buy books
>from us instead of from that company". It's a philosophical and moral,
>not a legal argument. RMS may find it annoying, but it doesn't mean
>he wants to stop giving people the freedom to do it.
Unfortunately, there are two things that stumble into each others' way:
a) The legal issues of what the GPL is intended to permit, and what it
is intended not to permit, and
b) What RMS wants and does not want.
Since RMS and the GPL are not identically transformable onto one
another, confusion ensues.
RMS created the "best license he could come up with" to try to encourage
the sorts of things he wanted to encourage.
It is only perfectly encouraging of those things if he is the sole
"Interpreter of the Law." And, for better or for worse (I think better),
he is not the sole arbiter.
The O'Reilly "thing" displays this issue quite nicely, separating out
the issue of:
a) RMS, composer of an interesting software license, and
b) RMS, "moral compass."
It is not unreasonable to say:
"If it is good to have freely available software, is it not good to also
have freely available documentation to go along with that?"
(Would you like to have "free" fries to go along with your "free"
burger?)
If it is good to have "Free Perl," or "Free Emacs," or "Free Whatever,"
it is a good thing to have decent freely available documentation to go
along with that. I see that as being the "FSF" position on
documentation.
In contrast, that is obviously *not* in O'Reilly's interests; they
doubtless prefer to see people getting free software and then having to
buy documentation *from them.* They can, and indeed *do* make a fairly
nice business of selling documentation for free software.
If the FSF (or the LDP) gives away documentation, that cuts into
O'Reilly's business.
I am unsurprised that there are differing attitudes, or that there is a
degree of conflict over the issue.
--
"Even more amazing was the realization that God has Internet access. I
wonder if He has a full newsfeed?" (By Matt Welsh)
cbbrowne@hex.net - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:40:35 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <7Q391.94$152.968093@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <pudge-2105980921570001@dynamic95.ply.adelphia.net>,
Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com> wrote:
>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?
The only context in which the GPL applies is the rights and
responsibilities of the recipient of a program. If your program is derived
from someone else's program, the original author has to allow you to share
it. If he gave it to you under the GPL, he is allowing you to share it
with your friends.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:42:11 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <DR391.95$152.968093@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <pudge-2105981629440001@dynamic95.ply.adelphia.net>,
Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <wsn4syja7ay.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>, robert havoc pennington
><hp@pobox.com> wrote:
>
># 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.
>
>Barry spoke from the perspective of the creator: it allows me to share
>with my friends.
If you think that, you misunderstood me. I've read the GPL many times, and
I know that it only applies to recipients, not creators.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:47:11 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <jW391.96$152.968093@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <p5d8d7biju.fsf@baynetworks.com>,
Paul D. Smith <psmith@baynetworks.com> wrote:
>Perhaps it would be more PC for the bulletin to say that they'd like
>"GPL'd documentation", rather than "free documentation", but it is their
>news bulletin, presumably read only by people familiar with the FSF and
>their philosophy and politics.
It might be more PC, but it would be less correct. RMS knows that there
are other licenses that meet his definition of free, and it would
presumably be acceptable to him if there were Perl documentation covered by
any one of them. It doesn't have to be the GPL.
Unfortunately, there's no short term for "free, by the FSF's definition".
In FSF documents, it's understood that this is what "free" means.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:39:32 -0300
From: Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra <leandro@lge.com.br>
To: Steve McNabb <smcnabb@interlog.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3564C944.6A524C8F@lge.com.br>
Steve McNabb wrote:
>
> I had another look at the GPL, but this is still a little hazy -- could
> someone perhaps shed some light on this?
Read the Philosophy section on www.gnu.org. Essentialy, you can sell
anything GPL'd for any price someone will seem fit paying you -- *but*
you *must* also give them the stuff with the same rights you received,
that is, you shall not add any restrictions beyond GPL. That's
copyleft.
Examples: Roxen is sold. RedHat, Caldera, and Debian CD-ROMs are sold.
You can even give the source code only for paying customers --
obviously, they would have the option of copying it to everyone. That's
why most people offer the source code anyway and make money on services
related to their product instead.
--
Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra
http://www.lge.com.br./ leandro@lge.com.br
http://www.terravista.pt./Enseada/1989/ BRASIL
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 00:48:55 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2i1n$370$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, cbbrowne@hex.net writes:
:It is not unreasonable to say:
:
:"If it is good to have freely available software, is it not good to also
:have freely available documentation to go along with that?"
Of course that is reasonable. Which is why Perl *is* freely available
software with freely available documentation.
--tom
--
The Unix Way of doing something [...] is to make it look as much like a filter
as possible. (Richard O'Keefe)
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 00:51:21 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2i69$370$2@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
:FSF is non-profit, so how can it profit from ORA?
I meant "to profit" in the sense of "to benefit". How could
you think anything else? :-)
--tom
--
f u cn rd ths, itn tyg h myxbl cd.
------------------------------
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 2672
**************************************
