[9056] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2674 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Thu May 21 22:07:42 1998
Date: Thu, 21 May 98 19:00:24 -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: 2674
Today's topics:
Re: Clearly define "free software" (Christopher Seawood)
Re: constants in perl? <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: Forking a job from a perl CGI <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community. (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (E. Gkioulekas)
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 <rra@stanford.edu>
help <flovine@world.std.com>
Re: looking for simple browser - cgi compatible -not ly <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Quiet summary (Greg Lindahl)
Re: static variables in perl? <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: static variables in perl? <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Why NOT crypt??? (Mark-Jason Dominus)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:04:39 GMT
From: cls@seawood.org (Christopher Seawood)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <Ha491.251$C06.1283191@news.san.rr.com>
robert havoc pennington (hp@pobox.com) wrote:
: cls@seawood.org (Christopher Seawood) writes:
: >
: > 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".
: >
:
: You are free to compile and link with proprietary libraries, you just
: can't distribute the result. So use is not limited. Distribution is,
: however.
Ok, so instead of not adhering to the "use" portion of the "free software
definition as defined by the FSF", it doesn't adhere to the "distribute,
either verbatim or with modifications" part. The point being that GPL
software does not adhere to the "free software definiton as defined by
the FSF." (I should really make a macro for that. ;)
: There is no doubt that the GPL imposes some restrictions. The issue is
: whether they are more onerous than whatever benefits the restrictions
: result in, unless you are one of these "a priori morality" kind of
: people (in the beginning, God/Logic said "Software will be free"...)
: :)
No, the issue is whether or not they are misrepresenting themselves when
they say GPL software is "free software". Hence the need to explicitly
state whose "free software" definition you plan to use.
: > 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."
: >
:
: Obviously 2) is false, so it would be illogical to maintain that.
You just stated that the GPL restricts distribution of modified
code, so how can you say 2) is false? The only way you could
do that is if you substitute the purpose of the license for the
effect. I'm talking about the actual effect of the GPL which is
to create "proprietary software as defined by the FSF."
Again, from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html,
"Proprietary software is software that is not free or semi-free. Its
use, redistribution or modification is prohibited, or requires you to
ask for permission, or is restricted so much that you effectively can't
do it freely. "
Since you stated that GPL restricts distribution, how can you say it is
"free software as defined by the FSF"? Obviously, according to these
definitions, it cannot both be "free software as defined by the FSF"
and "proprietary software as defined by the FSF."
: 1) is not very ambiguous in common usage, and is applied with much
: success by e.g. Debian and Red Hat and www.opensource.org. But perhaps
: it could be clarified further.
In common usage, it's even more ambigious. In this thread, I am
explicitly defining what I mean by the terms I use and we still do not
agree upon the meaning (or effect) of these terms. The majority of the
time, I would guess that people do not do this. They assume since they
know what they mean by a term the other person does as well unless the
other person indicates otherwise.
: > If someone can logically (as opposed to religiously) come up with another
: > explanation, I'd like to hear it.
: >
:
: I'm sure you will be very objective when you decide what is "logical"
: and what is "religious." ;-)
Logically, meaning that the person can explain their position by stating
examples and going step by step, proving and disproving things along
the way. More/less like the scientific process.
Religious, meaning that the person does not explain their position,
they do not address the points at hand, and eventually they resort to
degrading the other participants.
How's that? ;)
Regards,
Christopher
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 01:09:15 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: constants in perl?
Message-Id: <6k2j7r$370$4@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, "Andrew M. Dungan" <dungan@flash.net> writes:
:does perl support constants?
:
:I want to define something like:
:
:const $pi=3.14;
:
:can this be done in perl? if so, how?
This, like your previous question, is fully explained in the standard
Perl documentation included with your system, which I strongly counsel
you to read, and, failing that, at least to grep.
Here are relevant mentions:
perldelta.pod:=head2 New and changed builtin constants
perldelta.pod:=item use constant NAME => VALUE
perldelta.pod:Provides a convenient interface for creating compile-time constants,
perldelta.pod:New constants in the existing Fcntl modules are now supported,
perldelta.pod:These constants are intended for use with the Perl operators sysopen()
perldelta.pod:exact meaning of these and other Fcntl constants please refer to your
perldelta.pod:In addition, the Fcntl module now provides these constants for use
perldelta.pod:These constants are defined in all environments (because where there is
perldelta.pod:reasons, these constants are not exported unless they are explicitly
perldelta.pod:Made DB_File automatically import the open() constants (O_RDWR,
perlguts.pod:=head2 Compile pass 1a: constant folding
perlguts.pod:judged to be constant) it is immediately executed, and a I<constant>
perlguts.pod:If constant folding was not performed, the execution-order thread is
perlipc.pod:worked, but constant numbers make careful programmers nervous.
perlmod.pod:Another use of symbol tables is for making "constant" scalars.
perlmod.pod:This isn't the same as a constant subroutine (one prototyped to
perlmod.pod:take no arguments and to return a constant expression), which is
perlsub.pod:You aren't allowed to modify constants in this way, of course. If an
perlsub.pod:inlining. If the result after optimization and constant folding is
perlsub.pod:either a constant or a lexically-scoped scalar which has no other
perlsub.pod:inlined. (See constant.pm for an easy way to declare most
perlsub.pod:constants.)
perlsub.pod:particular subroutine is considered constant.) The warning is
perltoc.pod:=head2 constant - Perl pragma to declare constants
constant.pm:constant - Perl pragma to declare constants
[REMAINDER DELETED]
--tom
--
[End of diatribe. We now return you to your regularly scheduled
programming...]
--Larry Wall in Configure from the perl distribution
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:00:52 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: Boaz Yeger <byeger@cs.ucr.edu>
Subject: Re: Forking a job from a perl CGI
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980521175804.9010E-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On 21 May 1998, Boaz Yeger wrote:
> I have a CGI script that need to exec a job which might run from 5
> seconds and up to a few hours. I tried:
> system("program&"): Program die after about 10 seconds
Find whatever is killing your program and stop it. It's clear that a
system administrator doesn't intend programs started from the web to run
indefinitely on your system; attempting to circumvent that restriction may
be technologically possible, but not wise.
Good luck!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:04:13 +1000
From: trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community.
Message-Id: <6k2iud$uoj$1@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au>
Zenin <zenin@bawdycaste.org> writes:
>Ron House <house@usq.edu.au> wrote:
> >snip<
>: Is FSF s'ware free, or is that just propaganda?
> Depends on what you meen by "free". If I have a GPLed program on my
> computer and decide to change a piece of it *for my own personal
> use* and don't publish this change to the entire world, I'm in
> direct violation of the GPL.
Wrong.
Have you even read the GPL, or did someone tell you about it?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:00:10 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u6491.97$152.968093@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <p5vhqzbs79.fsf@baynetworks.com>,
Paul D. Smith <psmith@baynetworks.com> wrote:
>All copyrighted work allows for parts of it to be copied under "fair
>use". I would say that any code example less than a page or so long is
>_automatically_ copyable under copyright law. Of course, IANAL.
A number of people have made this claim in this thread, and I replied to
one of them already, but I'll repeat myself here.
IANAL either, but I believe the fair use exception also specifies the
purposes you can use those excerpts for, and I don't think incorporating
them into programs that you license under your own terms is one of 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: 22 May 1998 00:44:51 GMT
From: egkioule@u.washington.edu (E. Gkioulekas)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2hq3$1dba$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
>In article <_bS81.68$152.620589@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>, Barry
>Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
># The GPL doesn't force you to share with your friends, it allows it.
>What an odd thing to say. Since when does something like sharing your own
>work with your friends need to be allowed? Does it allow me to cross the
>street without my mommy, too?
Since copyright law was invented. Without the GPL you're not allowed to
even use your damn copy. With the GPL you are allowed to do a whole lot of
things.
FYI: You're allowed to cross the street without your mommy, but only when the
light is green. If the light is red, then you are not allowed to cross
the street.
Can I help you with anything else?
Elef.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:07:39 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <CA50617DD0F05277.180F99385A81BF31.257BE60CE6C5C359@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On Fri, 22 May 1998 00:27:34 GMT, Barry Margolin
<barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>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?
Why not? The publisher of a hardcopy book is obviously making money
off of your work, sometimes a significant amount of money. There is
nothing wrong with reserving non-electronic distribution with a
royalty requirement -- even if a documentation is otherwise free.
-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 18:06:59 -0700
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m3u36jqfkc.fsf@windlord.Stanford.EDU>
In comp.lang.perl.misc, Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
> 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?
It's not an unknown concern. We have the same issue with other free
software licenses; people are often willing to give away their work
provided that others do not charge for it, but are unwilling to see others
make money off of their work.
People with that opinion will be unhappy with most of the existing free
software licenses.
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -- Russ Allbery, Just Another Perl Hacker
$^=q;@!>~|{>krw>yn{u<$$<[~||<Juukn{=,<S~|}<Jwx}qn{<Yn{u<Qjltn{ > 0gFzD gD,
00Fz, 0,,( 0hF 0g)F/=, 0> "L$/GEIFewe{,$/ 0C$~> "@=,m,|,(e 0.), 01,pnn,y{
rw} >;,$0=q,$,,($_=$^)=~y,$/ C-~><@=\n\r,-~$:-u/ #y,d,s,(\$.),$1,gee,print
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 18:13:32 -0700
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m3pvh7qf9f.fsf@windlord.Stanford.EDU>
In comp.lang.perl.misc, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@news.hex.net> writes:
> In contrast, that is obviously *not* in O'Reilly's interests; they
> doubtless prefer to see people getting free software and then having to
> buy documentation *from them.* They can, and indeed *do* make a fairly
> nice business of selling documentation for free software.
> If the FSF (or the LDP) gives away documentation, that cuts into
> O'Reilly's business.
Oh good grief.
Perl already comes with free documentation.
Very extensive free documentation.
Documentation which is *more comprehensive*, *more complete*, and *more
up-to-date* than anything O'Reilly has put in a book. Documentation that
was *written by the same people who wrote the books*. In fact, large
portions of the books are essentially taken from the existing free
documentation. O'Reilly has no problems with this.
It's just not GPLed documentation.
But it's miles better than anything Stallman's going to come up with. I
can assure you of that. And if *it's* not causing O'Reilly any problems,
the FSF or LDP certainly aren't going to.
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -- Russ Allbery, Just Another Perl Hacker
$^=q;@!>~|{>krw>yn{u<$$<[~||<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 21:08:36 -0400
From: Fred Lovine <flovine@world.std.com>
Subject: help
Message-Id: <3564D013.2737CA2@world.std.com>
I am using Perl 5.003 on both NT and Solaris platforms.
I am also using Perl 4.0 on HP-UX
The following code works on the HP, but not NT or Solaris.
When the file "xx" does not execute permission the code should
return: "command failed: Permission denied", but on NT and Solaris
I get: "command failed:"
Note: This code is directly from the book "Programming Perl"
$rc = 0xffff & system("./xx");
if ($rc == 0) {
print "ran with normal exit\n";
}
elsif ($rc == 0xff00) {
print "command failed: $!\n";
}
elsif ($rc > 0x80) {
$rc >>= 8;
print "ran with non-zero exit status $rc\n";
}
else {
print "ran with ";
if ($rc & 0x80) {
$rc &= ~0x80;
print "coredump from ";
}
print "signal $rc\n"
}
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:03:29 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: Joseph Norris <sirron@mail.mcoe.k12.ca.us>
Subject: Re: looking for simple browser - cgi compatible -not lynx -not netscape
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980521180104.9010F-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Thu, 21 May 1998, Joseph Norris wrote:
> I am trying to find a simple browser for my Linux box that will allow me
> to test my CGI scripts.
You don't need a browser or server to test CGI scripts. If you're not sure
how to test your CGI scripts, you'll find more information about them in
docs, FAQs, and newsgroups about CGI scripting. If you're using a Perl
module such as CGI.pm, you'll also find good information in that module's
docs. Hope this helps!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 01:08:22 GMT
From: lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Quiet summary
Message-Id: <6k2j66$sjk@news3.newsguy.com>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> Here's the restrained summary:
>
> ``There are two problems with the Perl documentation that we can
> and should clarify; this may involve changing included copyrights.
> The first matter is that using code derived from the examples
> (some of which are very long) in your programs in no way infects
> your code with the GPL. The second matter is that in whatever
> form that Perl is distributed, its documentation may/must also
> be distributed. The public statement by the FSF that Perl's
> documentation is not "free" risks misleading people -- because
> the Perl community recognizes that its documentation is free --
> and should be therefore amended.''
>
> That's about as restrained as I expect to get.
Where's your apology for not just stating this, and instead flaming
your friends and calling people names?
As for your asking FSF to say something different, I think that your
name-calling tactics are unlikely to have much of a result. And this
member of the Perl community knows full well that rms has a very
particular definition of "free".
Grow up, Tom.
-- g
[ I got my v1 "Programming Perl" for free from merlyn for contributing
code samples... ]
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 01:01:56 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: static variables in perl?
Message-Id: <6k2iq4$370$3@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, "Andrew M. Dungan" <dungan@flash.net> writes:
:does perl support static variables (like C++ does)?
Certainly Perl has variables private unto a scope whose values can persist
across calls to functions whose scopes are themselves lexically nested
within that containing scope of the aforementioned variables, which,
while at the implementational and conceptual level being by no stretch
of the imagination ``like'' what C does (why you mention C++ I have no
idea, as static variables are not a C++ language issue, deriving as they
do from the real C language), but since the end-user, perceived effect
of this juxtaposition is not uncomparable, I will tentatively respond
to your question with a guarded affirmative, laced with the appropriate
provisos and caveats.
:if so, what is the syntax to define a static variable?
There is no "syntax". There is merely understanding of proper scoping
and the principles of lexical closure. How to go about doing what
you want to do is explained in the perlsub manpage.
--tom
--
"I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating
system, and possibly program, of all time" - Bill Gates, Nov, 1987.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:11:57 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: "Andrew M. Dungan" <dungan@flash.net>
Subject: Re: static variables in perl?
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980521180529.9010G-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Thu, 21 May 1998, Andrew M. Dungan wrote:
> does perl support static variables (like C++ does)?
Have you seen section 7 of the Perl FAQ? Hope this helps!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 21:52:09 -0400
From: mjd@op.net (Mark-Jason Dominus)
Subject: Re: Why NOT crypt???
Message-Id: <6k2lo9$lh$1@monet.op.net>
Keywords: convertible Mildred schoolmate spacetime
In article <3564A11F.613E2D5F@kodak.com>,
Brian Mathis <brianm@kodak.com> wrote:
>crypt() has been around for (I'm guessing) as long as UNIX itself. It is not
>illegal, unexportable, or anything else.
Cite, please? Crypt is (slightly modified) DES; the key size is 56
bits, and I believe that it *isn't* exportable under current US
policies.
------------------------------
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 2674
**************************************
