[9061] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2679 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri May 22 03:07:21 1998
Date: Fri, 22 May 98 00:01:09 -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 Fri, 22 May 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 2679
Today's topics:
a2p chokes on gensub() function (Eric Pement)
Re: Clearly define "free software" <hp@pobox.com>
Re: Clearly define "free software" (Christopher Seawood)
Re: Clearly define "free software" <hp@pobox.com>
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 (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
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 (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
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 <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <hp@pobox.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil rjk@greenend.org.uk
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <hp@pobox.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: I can't use any modules in FreeBSD! (Nathan V. Patwardhan)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 06:42:45 GMT
From: epement@ripco.com (Eric Pement)
Subject: a2p chokes on gensub() function
Message-Id: <6k36p5$m5r$1@gail.ripco.com>
I'm trying to use the a2p (awk-to-perl) translator to convert a
GNU awk script which makes extensive use of the gensub() function
present in gawk 3.0.3. The a2p program doesn't recognize this
function and aborts as soon as it meets the first use of the gensub()
function. My a2p doesn't seem to show a version number.
Is there a workaround, or a more advanced version of a2p available?
Any other suggestions? (Reply by e-mail appreciated but not essential.)
--
Eric Pement <epement@ripco.com>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 06:18:44 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <wsn3ee296bf.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
cls@seawood.org (Christopher Seawood) writes:
>
> Again, you are confusing _intent_ with _results_.
I'm not confusing anything - see what I said next:
> : Now, they may not say what they mean explicitly enough for your
> : liking, but I think it's clear that they don't *mean* to be
> : contradictory. I find www.opensource.org a better source of
> : definitions, really, and the FSF does agree with that definition too.
>
> Again, the results of their actions fall a bit short of their good intentions.
>
I agree the results may not be perfect. My problem with your position
is that I am not sure anyone else has done any better. All the other
major licenses have problems of ambiguity and practice as well.
> GPL prohibits distribution of joint GPL and non GPL-compatible work.
> And since this joint work is derived from the GPL'd work, it is covered
> by the GPL. An example of this is xmcd+motif under linux. I am free
> to use, copy, modify and redistribute modifications of xmcd source
> according to the GPL. However, the moment I link it with motif under
> linux, I am violating the GPL. Same thing goes for KDE & Qt (unless
> you're running SuSE).
>
Yes, that's both a plus and a minus. You just have to decide what your
goals are, so you know what tradeoffs you want to make.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 06:43:50 GMT
From: cls@seawood.org (Christopher Seawood)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <G8991.377$C06.1480117@news.san.rr.com>
Barry Margolin (barmar@bbnplanet.com) wrote:
: In article <Ha491.251$C06.1283191@news.san.rr.com>,
: Christopher Seawood <cls@seawood.org> wrote:
: >robert havoc pennington (hp@pobox.com) wrote:
: >: 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. ;)
:
: Because your right to distribute this would interfere with the recipient's
: right to modify. You can't both win, so one of you has to lose, and it's
: the one who wants to make a proprietary version.
Ok, you've explained why it does what it does (which I already knew),
but you did not address the point of GPL software not being "free
software as defined by the FSF" because they had to make a choice
and added these restrictions.
I'm fairly aware of the philosophy behind copyleft and the reason
certain things are done. What I'm questioning is the clarity of how
things are stated. As was shown in previous posts, people confuse
the intent of "free software as defined by the FSF" with the actual
effects of the GPL.
Regards,
Christopher
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 06:54:12 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <wsnyavu7q3v.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
cls@seawood.org (Christopher Seawood) writes:
>
> I'm fairly aware of the philosophy behind copyleft and the reason
> certain things are done. What I'm questioning is the clarity of how
> things are stated. As was shown in previous posts, people confuse
> the intent of "free software as defined by the FSF" with the actual
> effects of the GPL.
>
I don't think they do confuse it. I think they feel the GPL is a
resonable approximation of the intent, given practical limitations.
No one has the Utopic Panacea License, but the GPL seems pretty good,
as do some others.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 04:57:53 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <7D7029AFEBA20062.89F409A12AA477D7.2EF1F061EDF38122@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On Fri, 22 May 1998 03:51:08 GMT, Barry Margolin
<barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>>>>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.
> [...] maybe I misunderstood the original post.
You did.
>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.
Perhaps you have missed the way that Bruce Sterling released his book
_The Hacker Crackdown_. He gave free, unlimited distribution for
electronic "publication" but explicitly denied other paper
publication. Implicit in this was also the fact that you could not
modify the book yourself.
This is *exactly* the same restriction which Mr. Christiansen placed
on the documentation in question.
Mr. Christiansen obviously wants to get royalties when there is
non-electronic distribution involved and there is more than mere
reproduction costs charged to the recipient. Yet his documentation is
freely available.
What about this do you not get?
-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 05:06:20 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <gJ791.104$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <m2k97fybf6.fsf@bigglesworth.isdn.uiuc.edu>,
Matthew R. Williams <mrw@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>I mean, one of the fundamental tenets of the FSF is that money can
>be made off of books and support. That is precisely what O'Reilly
>is doing.
One of the fundamental tents of the FSF is that money can be made off
*services*. Providing support is a service, supplying books and other
documentation is a service. Restricting what someone can do with the
documentation is not a service.
The FSF also sells their books -- you can even go into bookstores and buy
them. But they also make them available on the net, and the copyright
notice in the books is a copyleft. You can xerox their books, although it
would probably cost you more than just buying another copy.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 05:04:45 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k311d$br$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>In article <6k2nos$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."
I actually think that it is a result of extreme consumerism in modern
society that people actually begin to think that when they see the word
"free" they are going to get something for nothing.
The word sees incredible use in advertising, marketing, etc. The number
of advertisements one sees that give something for "free" versus the
number of serious discussions of being "free" must seriously change the
weightings of these meanings after a while.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 05:08:59 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <LL791.105$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <bypvh77ezi.fsf@bolzano.math.ethz.ch>,
Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>Now it maybe well be that producing quality documentation like
>O'Reilly and GPL style licences are incompatible.
Isn't that what people used to think about software, too?
--
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 05:10:53 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <832F95B293A6BDF2.D5BD2E1D8360BF3D.A653CC07FEEA49A2@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 21 May 1998 14:37:32 -0400, tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
wrote:
>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.
You can't modify the original, but you can make addenda.
-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 05:21:07 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <7X791.106$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <m2g1i3y761.fsf@bigglesworth.isdn.uiuc.edu>,
Matthew R. Williams <mrw@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>And as far as the bells and whistles of an OS, silly things like
>bash, emacs, etc...well, shit. Some of that will compile for
>WinDoze boxes, won't it? So let's call Bill Gates and have him
>call his boxes GNU/Windows systems.
There are several differences.
Windows doesn't come with any GNU code, AFAIK. On a complete Linux system,
the largest chunk of software is the GNU utilities and applications.
You can add GNU software to a Windows system, but you can take it away and
still have a fully-functional Windows system (well, if you consider Windows
functional). If you take away the GNU software from a Linux system, you've
got a system that's practically unusable -- it doesn't even have a shell.
Most of the commands that users invoke on a daily basis on a Linux system
are GNU utilities. Users rarely interact directly with the kernel.
I don't adhere to RMS's request to use the term GNU/Linux because
practically nobody does. The accepted name of this system is Linux, and
RMS is too late and not powerful enough to change this.
--
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 15:34:08 -0400
From: tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u1hg1i3to3z.fsf@mary-kay-commandos.MIT.EDU>
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.
They are free-gratis, but they are not free-libre. I want free-libre,
so that after I modify the program I can modify the documentation to
match.
Thomas
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 05:51:27 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <zn891.109$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <m2zpgbz35g.fsf@bigglesworth.isdn.uiuc.edu>,
Matthew R. Williams <mrw@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>But people seem to be defining an "operating system", in this case, as
>being damned near everything that's compiled and installed on a box.
>Nobody's been ridiculous enough to add in mailers and shit, but it's
>inevitable. (What's the FSF mailer, btw?)
"Operating system" is sometimes used to refer just to a kernel, other times
used to refer to the entire package of kernel, shell, utilities, etc.
While the word "kernel" suffices for the former, there isn't really another
common term for the latter. Certainly when most people think of Linux,
they're referring to the entire package; most people don't know or care
about the kernel as a separate entity, any more than PC users care about
the BIOS.
"Operating system" actually seems to be one of the more abused terms in the
industry. I first noticed this when Novell started calling Netware an
operating system. Excuse me, isn't it just some networking add-ons to DOS
and Windows (and is Windows an OS, or just an application that puts a
facade on top of DOS)?
Probably the most useful definition of "operating system" is the set of
software necessary for basic use of the system. Clearly the kernel is part
of that, but so is the shell, some system daemons, startup scripts, all the
utilities used by those scripts, and the commands that users use to control
the system. Compilers, fancy text editors, web browsers, networking
utilities, etc. are probably outside that minimal definition -- they're
applications instead.
>Ergo, I'm going to define an OS as "a kernel, with mustard and/or
>ketchup."
Oh, goody, Humpty Dumpty is back.
--
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 06:01:05 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <Bw891.110$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <6k311d$br$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>,
Tyson Richard DOWD <trd@cs.mu.oz.au> wrote:
>I actually think that it is a result of extreme consumerism in modern
>society that people actually begin to think that when they see the word
>"free" they are going to get something for nothing.
>
>The word sees incredible use in advertising, marketing, etc. The number
>of advertisements one sees that give something for "free" versus the
>number of serious discussions of being "free" must seriously change the
>weightings of these meanings after a while.
Hmm, do people think they don't have to pay for Pepsi Free?
Actually, it's interesting: if it were called Free Pepsi, they probably
would. What a difference Meta-t makes!
--
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 08:06:59 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2iumyhm9o.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
kfox@pt0204.pto.ford.com (Ken Fox) writes:
> Zenin <zenin@bawdycaste.org> writes:
> > GPL code is only "free" for "free use". It's great for use where
> > you don't ever want your code used for commercial use, but if you
> > do it's a nightmare.
>
> That's true. That's why it exists.
Sigh. Wrong. There are quite a few business thriving commercially on
GPLed code. They could not, for example, do this effectively on
code under a license like Aladdin Ghostscript (except Aladdin itself,
of course).
The GPL is only a hindrance if you want to remain the only party
being allowed to offer access to the source code. That's the precise
reason why it is there in the first place.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f|r Neuroinformatik, Universitdtsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 08:08:32 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2hg2ihm73.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>
> In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD) writes:
> :However, you convince everyone that there is true freedom when people cannot
> :change what you have written.
>
> True freedom doesn't not involve coming to my home and trashing
> it just because you feel like it. I haven't seen rms freely posting
> any of his phone card numbers, credit cards numbers, or bank account
> numbers to the net lately so that we can all freely use them.
The question is not coming to your house and trashing it, the question
is building a house just like yours and trashing that. No harm done
to you in the latter case.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f|r Neuroinformatik, Universitdtsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 08:13:45 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2g1i2hlye.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
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?
You are talking nonsense. The GPL has no impact on you sharing your
work in any way you like with whoever you want, even if you have given
copies of your work out before licensed under GPL, BSD, proprietary
licenses whatever.
The GPL only applies to you for work that is licensed to you under
it. For such work, it allows sharing it as well as any works you may
derive from it with your friends.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f|r Neuroinformatik, Universitdtsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 06:16:32 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <4L891.111$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <1d9ejxq.6h71e8113bsxuN@bay1-104.quincy.ziplink.net>,
Ronald J Kimball <rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>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>
However, to be fair, quite a few of the first nine definitions cannot apply
to software.
Also, I'm not really sure which one corresponds to RMS's sense. Often the
analogy is made to slavery, and "not allowing slavery" is 14. But maybe he
means 3b, "not bound, confined, or detained by force" or 4a, "having no
trade restrictions". But what about 15, "open to all comers"?
I suspect he would like it to be 1d, "enjoying personal freedom : not
subject to the control or domination of another", but I think this
definition is intended to apply only to people (what kind of "personal
freedom" can software have?).
--
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 06:06:46 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <wsn67iy96vd.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> >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.
>
Um, well, except for Linux, among those mentioned. ;-)
And Samba, Emacs, glibc, automake, autoconf, the GNU utilities, GIMP,
and lots of other stuff, all of which see major use in commercial
environments and some of which are a source of profit by commercial
companies.
There is no demonstrable correlation between license and free software
success that I can see. All the major licenses have both failures and
success stories - that's why they're major licenses.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 06:38:42 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <S3991.112$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <3564FFD7.3F67CB82@usq.edu.au>, Ron House <house@usq.edu.au> wrote:
>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.
True. RMS believes that all software should be free. But he realized that
his was a minority view. So he decided to start a grass-roots effort to
propagate free software. While some object to the use of the term "virus"
to refer to the GPL because of its negative connotations (and others, like
TomC, use it precisely because of those connotations), it's quite apt. He
hopes that by creating software that people would be willing to ingest,
despite the fact that it contains this virus, his view of a software utopia
could come into being spontaneously. Currently, the normal assumption is
that software is copyrightable, and free software (by almost any sense of
the word) is considered unusual. But if free software were ubiquitous, the
opposite might be true; someone trying to prohibit copying of their
software would be ostracized.
There was a time when slavery was considered normal. I'll bet there were
people who wrote manifestos that could be summarized as, "if only So-and-so
could change the law, he _would_ deny you your right to own slaves as you
see fit." Eventually, the law did change, due to a change in society's
views about what's right and wrong. But there were presumably analogues of
Stallman who instigated the movement in that direction. Maybe RMS is to
software rights as Martin Luther King, Jr. was to black civil rights. I
*know* I'm going to get blasted for this analogy; please try not to take it
too seriously, as I'm merely referring to his role as an evangelist of the
movement (reminder: not all blacks agreed with King, just as not all free
software proponents agree with RMS), I don't mean to equate them in their
importance to society as a whole -- Stallman is nowhere near MLK's
greatness.
--
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 03:09:43 +0100
From: rjk@greenend.org.uk
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <wwvra1nf448.fsf@sfere.greenend.org.uk>
Dear Tom,
I was very disappointed to see you posting a message with the subject
line "GPL documentation == unspeakable evil". I've only been familiar
with Perl for a few years, but over that time yours is one of the
names I've come to respect as an important contributor to the Perl
world. But when I saw what you posted, I have to admit that the first
word that sprung to mind was "kook".
I don't like it when people who I have come to respect start to behave
in ways that I feel are irrational.
I can understand that you don't like the GPL. Personally I think it
has many positive aspects, but I recognize that it has imperfections
for a number of purposes, and I can understand that for you those
imperfections may well be of great importance.
I am completely in favour of you putting your work under whatever
license you choose - though of course I have my own opinions on what
is "free" and what is a good thing.
But when you start using phrases like "unspeakable evil" I find that
all sorts of alarm bells start ringing. It feels like you are trying
to persuade people with purely emotional arguments, rather than
arguing a real case.
That's the kind of thing that makes me turn off: it seems to me that
all too often people resort to the attention-grabbing emotional
approach when they have no better argument. I don't believe I'm
unique in considering this a problem; I think you are damaging your
case amongst a potentially quite wide audience.
I don't mean to say that I believe you have no better argument; I find
your concern for your control over the intellectual property rights
over the documentation you have written to be quite understandable,
and I think other people and organizations should respect those
concerns.
I have very little time for the "you shouldn't say <whatever> because
it's divisive (or whatever)" attitude; there's little chance of people
understanding each other's viewpoints if no-one ever states them. But
I would urge you to think very carefully about what you are trying to
achieve, and how best you can achieve it, before posting further
inflammatory remarks on this topic.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 06:12:42 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <wsn4syi96lh.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
"Michael C. Grant" <mcgrant@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> By your very arguments you establish this fact: using GPLed code comes with
> restrictions; if you want to use the code, you have to accept the
> restrictions: less choice.
>
> I understand GNU's intentions are good here. To an extent, I agree with
> them. But let's not fool ourselves by saying that using GPLed code comes
> with no cost whatsoever. The GPL is a gilded cage.
>
I think most of us know that. It's a calculated tradeoff. No
self-fooling involved. ;-)
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 08:45:50 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <m2n2ca3ish.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
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:
> :I don't see why you're flaming.
>
> Because the prevaricative FUDworking has managed to convince people that
> Perl's documentation isn't free, so they're building crippled distributions
> of Perl. That is unfair to the users whom we're trying to help.
Don't be silly. Your documentation explicitly prohibits making more
than copying money with your docs. Outlets like RedHat make more than
copying money with the CDROMs they provide. That way they are able to
make a living and invest in future development of free software (such
as Gnome). Your license actively prohibits them to include your docs
on their disks. And now you blame them for building crippled
distributions.
Either choose a license that would allow them to include your docs
legally, or stop complaining that they don't do so.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f|r Neuroinformatik, Universitdtsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 04:57:10 GMT
From: nvp@shore.net (Nathan V. Patwardhan)
Subject: Re: I can't use any modules in FreeBSD!
Message-Id: <6k30j6$634@fridge.shore.net>
Tom Christiansen (tchrist@mox.perl.com) wrote:
: [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
: In comp.lang.perl.misc, mfuhr@dimensional.com (Michael Fuhr) writes:
: :/usr/bin/perl is Perl 4 on most FreeBSD systems
: That's dumb.
Once I get various book things out of the way, I'll be talking to some
folks at freebsd.org about switching from 4.036 to 5.004_0x in the
core distribution. They said that they need someone to do the bmake
work to strip out 4.036 and add a more recent version; apparently this
is a time-consuming task. I'm not sure if I'll be the lucky
volunteer, but ... it doesn't hurt to ask, I suppose. :-)
--
Nate Patwardhan|root@localhost
"Fortunately, I prefer to believe that we're all really just trapped in a
P.K. Dick book laced with Lovecraft, and this awful Terror Out of Cambridge
shall by the light of day evaporate, leaving nothing but good intentions in
its stead." Tom Christiansen in <6k02ha$hq6$3@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
------------------------------
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 2679
**************************************
