[9058] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2677 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri May 22 01:07:47 1998
Date: Thu, 21 May 98 22:01:49 -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: 2677
Today's topics:
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (John Stanley)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tom Mornini)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (le Fanttme)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Paul D. Smith)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <ljz@asfast.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Paul D. Smith)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.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 (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
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 <house@usq.edu.au>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <house@usq.edu.au>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Ronald J Kimball)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Ronald J Kimball)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 03:02:48 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2pso$5d2$1@news.NERO.NET>
In article <6k2nos$b6d$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> psmith@baynetworks.com writes:
>:If you check your dictionary I'll bet you could count on an extremely
>:small number of hands the words that have one and only one meaning
>:listed.
>
>Really? Please check for yourself. I don't believe you.
>
>But that's not the point. The point was that choosing the less common
>definition over the more common one invites gratuitous confusion.
I checked. The Webster's on my desktop has 25 entries for the word
"free". It isn't until number 17 that it mentions "without cost". The
first 16, and several of the last 8, define it in terms of "unfettered"
or "not limited."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 03:07:13 GMT
From: tmornini@netcom.com (Tom Mornini)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <tmorniniEtC8o2.8C7@netcom.com>
Tom Christiansen (tchrist@mox.perl.com) 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.
I'll also point out that royalties paid by O'Rielly to the authors of some
of these books mostly likely allowed some of these same folks to devote
more of their time to the free software movement...
After all, people who write free software don't live in free houses, attend
free schools, drive free cards or eat free food. (not ALL of the time!)
-- Tom Mornini
-- InfoMania
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 03:21:42 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <06C0EBC9AF1279AC.1200FB68DB8A58A2.9883D37B6D6239FE@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 21 May 1998 22:18:47 -0400, psmith@baynetworks.com (Paul D. Smith)
wrote:
>%% fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme) 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?
>
> lf> Why not? The publisher of a hardcopy book is obviously making
> lf> money off of your work, sometimes a significant amount of
> lf> money. There is nothing wrong with reserving non-electronic
> lf> distribution with a royalty requirement -- even if a documentation
> lf> is otherwise free.
>
>After all these weeks of arguing on gnu.misc.discuss, Austin, I can't
>believe you still don't get it.
After all these weeks of hearing other, less ideologically based
positions, Paul, I can't believe you still don't get it.
>People who put works under the GPL do so because the _EXPLICITLY_ don't
>want to require royalties. It doesn't matter if that work is a manual,
>or a software package, or whatever.
Mr. Margolin said zero, zip, zilch, nada, and EXACTLY *nothing* about
specifically GNU GPLed documentation, but "free" documentation.
Without specifying the license, I must approach the statement as if
someone made free documentation under a sane license, not the GNU GPL,
and probably under something similar to what Mr. Christiansen has
written -- since his copyright and license are what are at issue here.
-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 03:51:08 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <MC691.98$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <CA50617DD0F05277.180F99385A81BF31.257BE60CE6C5C359@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
le Fanttme <fantome/@/usa/./net> wrote:
>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.
The post I was replying to seems to imply that royalties are an inalienable
right. He said that documentation should not be free because authors would
not get royalties that are due to them. But royalties are not inherent --
you have to request them. Why would an author who wants royalties choose
to use a free license, when that would deny him his royalty rights? An
author should be permitted to use a free license; by implication, he
doesn't care that he's denying himself royalties.
But maybe I misunderstood the original post.
--
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 23:59:26 -0400
From: psmith@baynetworks.com (Paul D. Smith)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <p5btsr2bxd.fsf@baynetworks.com>
%% fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme) writes:
>>After all these weeks of arguing on gnu.misc.discuss, Austin, I can't
>>believe you still don't get it.
lf> After all these weeks of hearing other, less ideologically based
lf> positions, Paul, I can't believe you still don't get it.
???
Of course I "get it", if by "it" you mean that other people have
different opinions on how their works (code or documentation) should be
licensed.
I think you should license your works however you see fit, and I've
never said otherwise. Neither has anyone else on gnu.misc.discuss, that
I've seen. I wonder why you don't seem willing to extend the same
courtesy to people who choose the GPL.
>> People who put works under the GPL do so because the _EXPLICITLY_ don't
>> want to require royalties. It doesn't matter if that work is a manual,
>> or a software package, or whatever.
lf> Mr. Margolin said zero, zip, zilch, nada, and EXACTLY *nothing* about
lf> specifically GNU GPLed documentation, but "free" documentation.
lf> Without specifying the license, I must approach the statement as if
lf> someone made free documentation under a sane license, not the GNU GPL,
lf> and probably under something similar to what Mr. Christiansen has
lf> written -- since his copyright and license are what are at issue here.
What are you talking about? Of course a license has been specified; the
whole thread is talking about how "free" should be qualified to satisfy
those who don't understand that it means "as defined by the GPL":
In <wsnu36j8k6k.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>, robert havoc pennington wrote:
>"Your perl docs are not free according to the definition given on
> www.gnu.org or www.opensource.org"
>?
How is this "not specifying a license"? He specified two, in fact, one
of which is the GPL.
In the followup <5B4437067D4883BF.F247A222F514B48C.A4BDAE187CFF1E56@library-proxy.airnews.net> (geesh!)
you wrote:
lf> IMO, documentation should not necessarily be "free" according to
lf> those definitions because of the possibility for publication in
lf> hardcopy books (or CD document collections) which may end up
lf> denying an author the royalties sie is due.
Barry followed up to that article of yours. The context is quite clear.
The point is, people who use these licenses are explicitly allowing this
type of reuse. The fact that you don't seem to understand this after
all the discussion of the GPL on gnu.misc.discuss makes me wonder how
much of your own .sig you are actually practicing, as opposed to
preaching.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 22 May 1998 00:00:01 -0400
From: Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <lthg2juf9a.fsf@asfast.com>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>
> In comp.lang.perl.misc, news@russo.org (Chris Russo) writes:
> :Why try to bend the English language to your group's wishes? Why not just
> :use the language correctly and be understood?
>
> Because then you wouldn't be able to trick people into thinking
> "free" when you said "free" and meant "encumbered". Every
> fanatic religious or marketing group does this. It's the
> "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" euphemism again.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery.
--
Lloyd Zusman ljz@asfast.com
perl -e '$n=170;for($d=2;($d*$d)<=$n;$d+=(1+($d%2))){for($t=0;($n%$d)==0;
$t++){$n=int($n/$d);}while($t-->0){push(@r,$d);}}if($n>1){push(@r,$n);}
$x=0;map{$x+=(($_>0)?(1<<log($_-0.5)/log(2.0)+1):1)}@r;print"$x\n"'
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 00:01:49 -0400
From: psmith@baynetworks.com (Paul D. Smith)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <p590nv2bte.fsf@baynetworks.com>
%% fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme) writes:
>> Likewise, I didn't put up the MPL, either, even though Tom's documents
>> aren't free according to the MPL.
lf> Actually, I think that Tom's documents would be free according to the
lf> MPL (with slight modification).
Tom's documents would be free according to _all_ the licenses I
mentioned... with slight modifications ;)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 21 May 1998 14:35:20 -0400
From: tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u1hn2cbtqtz.fsf@mary-kay-commandos.MIT.EDU>
cadams@ro.com (Chris Adams) writes:
> When Linus started Linux, he was told it was unneccesary for several
> reasons. Tannenbaum flamed him for the architecture, and GNU people
> told him that it was pointless, because the Hurd was going to be the
> GNU operating system.
I don't recall any GNU people telling Linus that his kernel was
pointless. I remember lots of people being quite pleased with it.
Do you have any quotes to offer us to the contrary, or are you just
making this up?
Thomas
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 14:37:32 -0400
From: tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u1hlnrvtqqb.fsf@mary-kay-commandos.MIT.EDU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> I realized that the FSF was lying to the world by saying that Perl's 1,000
> pages of document weren't free, and that this dangerous lie was hurting
> Perl. It made people think they couldn't include the documentation
> with the distribution. This idea of a Perl without documentation must
> be stopped.
The reason that it isn't free is that if I create a modified copy of
Perl, I am prohibited by your license from distributing a modified
copy of the documentation to match.
That restriction means that the documentation is not as free as the
software, and it would be very nice to have Perl documentation that
was actually free, instead of one which is used as a lever to keep
people from making changes to the software.
Thomas
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 04:11:34 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <WV691.100$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <pudge-2105980911520001@dynamic95.ply.adelphia.net>,
Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <6k0kkj$dn2$3@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, tchrist@mox.perl.com
>(Tom Christiansen) wrote:
>
># [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>#
># In gnu.misc.discuss,
># Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
># :I disagree. Program documentation is utilitarian, it's not artistic or
># :rhetorical prose
>#
># I see that you haven't read my writings lately.
>
>Tom, more importantly, you can see that he does not write much Perl.
I've written lots of Perl. It's one of my preferred languages.
>After the old "make easy things easier and hard things possible" thing,
>possibly the number one reason why Perl is as popular as it is is the fact
>that utility and art have common ground in it. That permeates the source,
>the docs, the programs, everything.
>
>Only someone without imagination cannot see the art in perl, its source,
>and its docs.
My intention was to point out that with programs and documentation, the
primary value is in what it does. The style of the source code is
certainly important, but secondary. Compare that with paintings or
literature, where the style and artistry is usually paramount. Taken to
the extreme, poor style can negate other values; for instance, if you've
made source available, but obfuscated it heavily, the source is practically
worthless, and I think most people would consider that distributing
obfuscated source code would not satisfy the GPL's requirements (is
obfuscated code really "the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it"?). But in less extreme cases, it doesn't really
matter how well it's written (in fact, poor source code may be more
valuable, as I would guess that it's also more likely to be buggy, so users
will need to fix it).
--
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 04:08:25 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2tnp$r0l$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
news@russo.org (Chris Russo) writes:
>In article <p5som3br54.fsf@baynetworks.com>, psmith@baynetworks.com wrote:
>>Fine. Create a license that's used by thousands of packages and
>>hundreds of thousands of people, have it considered, argued over,
>>etc. for 10 years, start an organization based on your interpretation of
>>free, win a number of grants and other awards, become a recognized
>>spokesperson, create many writings describing exactly what you mean and
>>why you think it's the right thing and make them publicly available,
>>etc.
>Excellent work by RMS. It still doesn't mean that people in general will
>automatically understand what you mean by "free".
>I know that I was confused by the corrupted use of the word "free" when I
>started reading this thread.
That's because the thread was taking about a line taken from the FSF
web page (you really cannot claim to be unsure of what "free" means on
the FSF web pages) and crossposted to comp.lang.perl.misc and
gnu.misc.discuss.
>Why try to bend the English language to your group's wishes? Why not just
>use the language correctly and be understood?
Look in the dictionary. There are multiple meanings of free.
Look at the context it was used in. The correct meaning is fairly clear
if you've ever read the FSF webpage. If you haven't, what are you
doing in this thread?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 04:18:08 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <40791.101$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <895752677.991101@thrush.omix.com>,
Zenin <zenin@bawdycaste.org> wrote:
>Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>: I don't think so. The BSD license allows you to distribute binary-only
>: copies, thus preventing users from modifying it to suit their needs.
>
> The BSD license allows you to distribute in source or binary, with
> or without modifications, so long as the copyright, list of
> conditions, disclaimer, and acknowledgements are included (about a
> page or two of text).
Sounds like we're in complete agreement, except that we appear to be
talking about different users. The BSD license allows you to distribute in
source or binary. If you choose to distribute in binary, you prevent the
user from modifying it to suit their needs.
You seem to be referring to the person distributing the derived work when
you say "user". I'm referring to the end user, and that's whose rights the
GPL tries to preserve. The end user may become a distributor of a derived
work, as well; the BSD license allows you to prevent that, again by
allowing you to distribute binary-only.
--
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 14:44:58 -0400
From: tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u1hk97ftqdx.fsf@mary-kay-commandos.MIT.EDU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> This is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. No one knows about
> guile. No one cares. It will never, ever, ever replace Perl. Mark my
> words.
Why do you care so much? Why is so much of your ego bound up with the
success or failure of a stupid software project?
You couldn't handle a simple discussion once of features that emacs
handled and vi didn't; you got visibly upset and could barely manage
to keep your temper under control. And now you're so threatened by a
different scripting language that you feel the need to toss off
pointless things like this.
Get a hold of yourself, Tom. It's only a software project. It's not
Life.
Thomas
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 23:20:12 -0500
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2uds$ej7$1@Mars.mcs.net>
In article <6k0irk$bma$3@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>In gnu.misc.discuss,
> les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>:I don't see how you can legally deliver an unaltered perl distribution
>:in any situation where profit is involved unless you separate perlfaq
>:or change the copyright to match perl itself.
>
>Bundling the FAQ with the complete distribution is of course perfectly
>fine -- and mandatory. I'm talking about people putting my FAQ in their
>own books and charging for it. That I won't stand for. If you want to
>distribute the FAQ *unbundled*, you must not charge more that it cost
>you to copy it.
Great, but perhaps it should say that in the copyright notice if that
is what you intended.
Another issue that hasn't been mentioned yet among all the flames is,
what happens to a 'non-modifiable' document that needs to evolve to
match the thing it documents if the copyright holder is no longer
interested or able? Even if it turns out not to be true that reading
usenet for long periods turns people stark raving mad, what if you
get hit by a beer truck? Does the next FAQ-writer have to start
from scratch?
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 04:19:43 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2ucv$rj8$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
>The FSF or GN or whoever is irresponsible when they say, without direct
>qualification, that there is no good free manual for Perl. It is false
>without context, which is not provided in this case being discussed.
You can blame Tom C. for that. The original statement was on
the FSF web page, which provides plenty of context for the intended
meaning of free.
Although, to be fair, I think the quote was passed on to him without
context. Exploding in public about it without doing any research
first is a fairly strong reaction, however.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 04:26:00 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2uoo$rrh$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com> writes:
>:the free docs will never be as good
>:as the regular ones.
>Please, please stop repeating this miscarriage of truth.
>The Perl documentation are free. They always have been.
>They always will be.
You might be able to get away with this statement in
comp.lang.perl.misc, but you can't get away with it in gnu.misc.discuss.
You will never convince people familiar with free licenses that
your documentation is anything but gratis non-commercial use
documentation. You cannot expect to use the word "free" in the free
software community to mean anything less than freedom to use, modify and
redistribute (at least, you cannot expect to use it unambiguously).
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 23:32:58 -0500
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2v5q$elo$1@Mars.mcs.net>
In article <yc74sykdoyu.fsf@shell1.tiac.net>,
Zach Kessin <zkessin@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>The FSF in general and RMS in particular seem to be rather steemed now
>that the Free/Open software movement has started to ignore them. Linux
>exists because of Linus and company and Perl because of Larry Wall and
>Randal and Tom (and others of course). I think RMS is annoyed because
>free software is finaly being taken seriously, and its Linux, Apache
>and perl that people are looking at.
And for obvious reasons. These do not have restrictions that prevent
commercial use or linking with code under different copyrights. People
can actually use them for something of value.
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 04:36:22 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2vc6$s9t$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
>In article <wsnu36j8k6k.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>, robert havoc pennington
><hp@pobox.com> wrote:
># 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"
># ?
>#
># 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.
>Who gives a rip if Tom knows what you mean? This discussion is read by
>many people who do not, and that is something that is your cross to bear.
>If you want to knowingly mislead others, than you must take the heat for
>it.
Huh?
Tom C. brought it up. He was the one who posted a quotation out of context
from the FSF web page (where they carefully explain what they mean by
free). He still claims to be ignorant of the meaning of the word
in context, and anyone who tries to explain it to him is called a liar,
evil, misleading, etc.
Are you insinuating that he knowingly mislead everyone, and should now
take the heat for it?
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 21:38:37 -0700
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m3iumyor76.fsf@windlord.Stanford.EDU>
In comp.lang.perl.misc, Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG <tb@mit.edu> writes:
> That restriction means that the documentation is not as free as the
> software, and it would be very nice to have Perl documentation that was
> actually free, instead of one which is used as a lever to keep people
> from making changes to the software.
Do you have any evidence to indicate that this is actually being done?
If you do not, would you mind s/is/could be/ at a strategic point in that
sentence when you say similar things in the future? Thank you.
--
#!/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,(\$.),$1,gee,print
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 04:30:40 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2v1g$jut$2@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) writes:
:That restriction means that the documentation is not as free as the
:software, and it would be very nice to have Perl documentation that
:was actually free, instead of one which is used as a lever to keep
:people from making changes to the software.
What a terribly obvious lie. Please don't repeat it.
And yes, I know lie is a nasty word. You have said
a nasty thing.
--tom
--
I'm TRYING to be a back end! - --Andrew Hume
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:32:23 +1000
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3564FFD7.3F67CB82@usq.edu.au>
Tyson Richard DOWD wrote:
>
> Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
>
> >I really hate to see folks making others' decisions for them. It's morally
> >repugnant. I also don't want them violating my own artistic rights. This
> >too is a moral concern.
>
> Since this is your work, everyone (including, IMHO the FSF) agrees you
> have the right to do this -- you are the author. If you want to license
> your work as you have, then go ahead and do it.
Here's what Stallman actually said:
:The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one
:neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code
:and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program
:is used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a
:situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming
:society as a whole both materially and spiritually; in which a
:person should not do so regardless of whether the law enables him
:to.
So, no, my take on that is that if only Stallman could change
the law, he _would_ deny you your right to license your work
as you see fit. There's lots more like this in the manifesto,
go have a read.
--
Ron House
house@usq.edu.au
An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 04:41:32 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2vls$shm$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> psmith@baynetworks.com writes:
>:As I've posted numerous times to this thread already, the whole issue of
>:"using examples places your code under the GPL" is purely FUD.
>:Copyright law allows this. There is no problem with it (unless, I
>:suppose, the examples are pages long or something).
>Hold up. You mean that GPL'd coding solutions, like lifting a subroutine,
>taken from the Perl docset do not upon their inclusion in your program
>infect it with the GPL? Really? If so, that's wonderful, but I am
>not following your reasoning. How is this different from lifting a
>subroutine from a GPL'd program? What does it matter whether the GPL'd
>object from which the subroutine was taken is a program versus a document?
>I really don't understand. And I'd like to.
I'm not sure this is possible. I don't think Australian copyright law
allows fair use from program source, but then again, you've written
a document, not a program, so I might be able to do it. (Then again,
Australian fair use doesn't allow timeshifting television programs).
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 04:45:04 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2vsg$smr$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
barr@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dave Barr) writes:
>In article <6k22d5$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.
If you can't distribute the changes they aren't worth much. Everyone
has to make their own changes, which can be pretty ridiculous.
And lots of "shrinkwrap" licenses prevent modifcation, or even reverse
engineering (for example I believe Blizzard is taking people to court
over reverse engineering some of their data formats for games).
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:50:11 +1000
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <35650403.6A2BE920@usq.edu.au>
Jan Vroonhof wrote:
>
> pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
>
> > I officially redefine "free" as meaning "provided with ketchup". Any
> > other usage with me is misleading.
>
> Putting all sillyness inside, the word 'free' in English does
> have several meanings in english which lead to all this mess. While it
> would haven be very much better if the FSF/RMS had not used such an
> ambivalent term they just made precise which of the meanings of free
> they meant and are consistent in using it in that way.
But this is the whole problem: they did not use any
recognised meaning of the word: they made up a new
meaning.
--
Ron House
house@usq.edu.au
An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 04:41:11 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2vl7$jut$3@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) writes:
:Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
:
:> This is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. No one knows about
:> guile. No one cares. It will never, ever, ever replace Perl. Mark my
:> words.
:
:Why do you care so much?
I don't. I just thought it was the funniest, most grandiose,
and unbelievably unrealistic thing I'd read in a long time.
--tom
--
clueless> $SOCK_STREAM = 2
Huh? use Socket or die!
--Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:56:37 -0400
From: rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu (Ronald J Kimball)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <1d9ejit.pfzemmn3yf3uN@bay1-104.quincy.ziplink.net>
Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com> wrote:
> I officially redefine "free" as meaning "provided with ketchup". Any
> other usage with me is misleading.
Well, if we can have "GNU/linux", perhaps we could have "GNU/free".
Would that be less misleading?
:-)
--
_ / ' _ / - aka - rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu
( /)//)//)(//)/( Ronald J Kimball chipmunk@m-net.arbornet.org
/ http://www.ziplink.net/~rjk/
"It's funny 'cause it's true ... and vice versa."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:56:38 -0400
From: rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu (Ronald J Kimball)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <1d9ejxq.6h71e8113bsxuN@bay1-104.quincy.ziplink.net>
Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com> wrote:
> Yeah, right. MOST rational people think "free" means without cost or
> payment.
That's not the only definition of "free". In Webster's Dictionary,
that's not even the first definition of "free". It's not the second
definition. It's not the third definition. In fact, in Webster's
dictionary, "not costing or charging anything" appears as the *tenth*
definition of "free".
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=free>
Chris, your statement is complete and utter bullsh*t.
--
_ / ' _ / - aka - rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu
( /)//)//)(//)/( Ronald J Kimball chipmunk@m-net.arbornet.org
/ http://www.ziplink.net/~rjk/
"It's funny 'cause it's true ... and vice versa."
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 04:49:47 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k305b$stg$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Arnt Gulbrandsen <agulbra@troll.no> writes:
>schuerig@acm.org (Michael Schuerig)
>> How about a script that patches the addendum into the original
>> documentation on the fly...
>What you mean is a script that builds a keyword index, or a database
>for a search engine, or something of the sort.
>grep will easily look through the 101 addendums mentioned earlier.
This is a wart on a kludge.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 04:56:05 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k30h5$t5f$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fantome) writes:
>On Fri, 22 May 1998 00:27:34 GMT, Barry Margolin
><barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>>In article <5B4437067D4883BF.F247A222F514B48C.A4BDAE187CFF1E56@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>>>IMO, documentation should not necessarily be "free" according to those
>>>definitions because of the possibility for publication in hardcopy
>>>books (or CD document collections) which may end up denying an author
>>>the royalties sie is due.
>>If the documentation author has made his documetation free, he's not
>>expecting royalties, no matter what form it's published in. Why should
>>royalties be due for hardcopy books when they're not expected for
>>electronic copies?
>Why not? The publisher of a hardcopy book is obviously making money
>off of your work, sometimes a significant amount of money. There is
>nothing wrong with reserving non-electronic distribution with a
>royalty requirement -- even if a documentation is otherwise free.
I hate to point this out, but plenty of internet service providers
are making money out of electronic distribution mechanisms too.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 04:54:16 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k30do$t2t$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>In comp.lang.perl.misc, 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.
Well, actually, neither of you are right.
Perl is freely modifiable, usable and redistributable software with
documentation available at no cost with some distribution and heavy
modification restrictions.
------------------------------
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 2677
**************************************
