[9062] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2680 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri May 22 03:27:39 1998
Date: Fri, 22 May 98 00:02:17 -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: 2680
Today's topics:
Re: More double standards out of the FSF <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: More double standards out of the FSF <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: More double standards out of the FSF <hp@pobox.com>
Re: More double standards out of the FSF <hp@pobox.com>
Re: Problem with using Perl to Sendmail (Martien Verbruggen)
Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software com <house@usq.edu.au>
Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software com <rra@stanford.edu>
Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software com <jlarke@anthem.aa.ans.net>
Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software com <hp@pobox.com>
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit (Olivier Galibert)
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit (Aaron Denney)
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: Utilitarian and artistic nature of documentation <geoffk@discus.anu.edu.au>
Re: Why NOT crypt??? (Martien Verbruggen)
Re: Why NOT crypt??? (Martien Verbruggen)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 05:30:10 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: More double standards out of the FSF
Message-Id: <C3891.107$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <wsnpvh78j32.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>,
robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com> wrote:
>Sure. OK, let's assume that perltoot is a piece of artistic prose. RMS
>sees a need for utilitarian, modifiable perl documentation, which he
>would see as distinct from opinion writing. Let him write this
>documentation and put his desire for it on his task list. How does
>that hurt you?
It hurts Tom because RMS's words are insulting. The implication is that
his artistic prose, which also serves the utilitarian purpose of educating
people about Perl, is not usable because it doesn't fit RMS's definition of
"free". Furthermore, if people are confused by RMS's use of the word,
they're likely to infer that Tom's documentation doesn't meet other common
definitions of "free", either. Tom's documentation is clearly not
proprietary, in the sense that most retail software is, but RMS may be
confusing people into believing that it is. And RMS's standing in the free
software community is such that his opinions, and people's
misunderstandings of it, carry significant weight.
I don't agree with some of the things Tom has said, but I can understand
why he feels slighted.
--
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 05:35:50 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: More double standards out of the FSF
Message-Id: <W8891.108$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <6k219i$aie$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>You cannot "modify" Perl in some way to make it not work like the standard
>release and still call it by that name.
The perl authors themselves make incompatible changes from minor release to
minor release (I know, because we have some scripts that behave
differently, depending on whether they're run with 5.003 or 5.004 -- the
differences are in some arithmetic operators).
Anyway, if the name is sacrosanct (and I believe even RMS agrees with this,
as I think he pushed for the non-GNU Emacs's to have distinct names like
Xemacs), I would just call my version PerlFixed or something like that if I
fixed a bug in Perl.
--
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 05:53:02 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: More double standards out of the FSF
Message-Id: <wsn7m3e97i9.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com> writes:
>
> Forgive me if this was covered somewhere else in this thread, but I
> didn't see it anywhere in the last 50-or-so posts I read of it so far:
>
> Comparing the O'Reilly books to the FSF documentation is a bit like
> comparing apples and oranges, isn't it? Wouldn't it be more to the
> point to compare the free Perl documentation to the FSF documentation?
>
There's a lot of overlap. Tom Christiansen has written some of the
docs that come with Perl, and some of the O'Reilly published material.
I guess the same is true of some other authors.
> Can anyone who's familiar with the FSF point of view provide the FSF
> position on the Perl FAQ's, the Perl man pages, and the other free
> Perl documentation (which is "free" pertaining to "cost" as well as
> "free" pertaining to "liberty", as near as I can tell)?
>
It isn't clear. If you read the copyright in the perltoot document by
Tom C., it is not free in the sense of "liberty" as defined by the
FSF, because modifications are not permitted. However, he allows
redistribution and (I guess) publication - the license is not very
formal, and probably not too good from a legal standpoint. I'm not
sure what it means really. The perlfaq doc has a more restrictive and
legalistic license, and it explicitly says publication and commercial
use is not allowed. Tom C. is listed as one of the perlfaq authors
too. So these docs at least are free of cost but not FSF-free.
Some other perl documents don't seem to have a copyright attached to
them, so I guess they fall under GPL/Artistic like perl itself? I have
no idea. Perhaps if one looks hard enough it says somewhere what the
copyright is, but if not this may be one reason not to distribute
them, because no copyright means "all rights reserved" by default.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 06:39:17 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: More double standards out of the FSF
Message-Id: <wsnzpga7qsq.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>
> It hurts Tom because RMS's words are insulting. The implication is that
> his artistic prose, which also serves the utilitarian purpose of educating
> people about Perl, is not usable because it doesn't fit RMS's definition of
> "free". Furthermore, if people are confused by RMS's use of the word,
> they're likely to infer that Tom's documentation doesn't meet other common
> definitions of "free", either. Tom's documentation is clearly not
> proprietary, in the sense that most retail software is, but RMS may be
> confusing people into believing that it is. And RMS's standing in the free
> software community is such that his opinions, and people's
> misunderstandings of it, carry significant weight.
>
> I don't agree with some of the things Tom has said, but I can understand
> why he feels slighted.
>
I am not sure what else one expects RMS[1] to do. He has his values
and goals; he puts on his task list what he thinks needs to be done in
order to achieve them. It's not like he mentioned Tom personally, he
just said "we need some free[2] Perl docs." Just like he says "we need
a free version of Motif," or "we need a free Qt," or whatever it may
be. Perl docs didn't get singled out, and neither did Tom C. Yet Tom
C. is the only person here flaming.
I'd probably use the same license Tom C. has in the same situation, or
at least consider it. But I wouldn't be surprised if RMS wanted to do
his own docs. I don't think it would bother me. It might bother me if
RMS posted a big whopping flame to Usenet with abusive language, but
that has not happened. He just announced his intention to do his own
docs, and that's his right.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
[1] I guess it was RMS - do we really know who did the web page?
[2] in the FSF sense, for the context-impaired. See www.gnu.org.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 06:23:36 GMT
From: mgjv@comdyn.com.au (Martien Verbruggen)
Subject: Re: Problem with using Perl to Sendmail
Message-Id: <6k35l8$h5n$1@comdyn.comdyn.com.au>
In article <3564DDD4.C90A5AE1@snp.com.sg>,
alvinho <alvinho@snp.com.sg> writes:
> Hi,
> I got this piece of Perl code to open the Sendmail port
Which piece? Sendmail port?
> and send a mail out. I works fine except for the strange
> thing that the body of the message can't contain a colon.
Without you showing us actual code, it's very very unlikley that we
can help you. Before posting code, however, make sure that it is a
perl problem, and not a problem with whatever mail program you use.
(From your post, I can almost certainly say that this is not a perl
problem, but I might be wrong)
> I'm using Perl for Win32 from ActiveWare sending to a
> SMTP server on a Solaris box.
Oh, you're talking to an SMTP server, directly? Then you should most
likely also make sure that what you send to that SMTP server conforms
to the RFC (820) describing that protocol. Not a perl issue. You can
alternatively use one of the SMTP modules from CPAN, which will make
sure that what you do is correct. If you're still having problems with
that protocol after trying the above, you should ask on a news group
that talks about it.
Martien
--
Martien Verbruggen |
Webmaster www.tradingpost.com.au | "In a world without fences,
Commercial Dynamics Pty. Ltd. | who needs Gates?"
NSW, Australia |
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:57:37 +1000
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <356505C1.7D9727F@usq.edu.au>
Michael J Gebis wrote:
> Why should the FSF type one keystroke to pander to someone who is too
> lazy to read their definition of "free"?
Maybe because they are the ones putting it out that he
hasn't provided free software, and because thousands of
people other than Tom, who are 'too > lazy to read their
definition of "free"' might think something nasty about
Tom that isn't true.
--
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: 21 May 1998 22:12:08 -0700
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m34syiopnb.fsf@windlord.Stanford.EDU>
In comp.lang.perl.misc, Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG <tb@mit.edu> writes:
> Tom is upset because he's built a livelihood around Perl, and he can't
> bear the thought that he might have to do something else someday. It's
> crucial to his income that he do what he does; he's done it for years,
> and it's not going to stop anytime soon.
> Behind almost everything Tom writes on the subject is the question of
> where he is expecting to get money from.
Saying this sort of thing to Tom is a fairly effective way to ensure that
no more useful content comes out of a conversation. You are being pretty
much as insulting as you possibly can. Sort of the Usenet equivalent of
spitting in his face.
I'm sorry to see that happen. I've done it before and invariably have
regretted it fairly severely down the road.
--
#!/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: Fri, 22 May 1998 06:21:12 GMT
From: Jason Larke <jlarke@anthem.aa.ans.net>
Subject: Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <vatemxm25d6.fsf@anthem.aa.ans.net>
>>>>> On 21 May 1998 19:38:09 GMT, gebis@albrecht.ecn.purdue.edu
>>>>> (Michael J Gebis) said:
MJG> Why should the FSF type one keystroke to pander to someone
MJG> who is too lazy to read their definition of "free"?
I don't claim they're under any obligation to do so, but it would
certainly clear up some potential for misunderstanding.
I would think that an organization so dependent on good will and
the desire to cooperate (valuable traits, no question) would like
to be as easily undertood as possible. Telling people not to go
reading other GNU documents until they have a solid understanding
of free software licensing issues does not strike me as the most
prudent course of action available.
--
Jason Larke- jlarke@ans.net- Just a happy little pimp for mayhem
I don't speak for ANS or the international communist conspiracy.
"People change, and smile: but the agony abides."-T.S. Eliot, The Dry Salvages
Send mail for PGP public key.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 06:26:29 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <wsn1ztm95yi.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
Ron House <house@usq.edu.au> writes:
>
> Michael J Gebis wrote:
>
> > Why should the FSF type one keystroke to pander to someone who is too
> > lazy to read their definition of "free"?
>
> Maybe because they are the ones putting it out that he
> hasn't provided free software, and because thousands of
> people other than Tom, who are 'too > lazy to read their
> definition of "free"' might think something nasty about
> Tom that isn't true.
>
They'd have to go to the FSF web page, dig around for this particular
comment (missing all the "philosophy" stuff which is much easier to
find), see the comment about perl docs, think "gee, I didn't pay for
that. I wonder what they mean by free. They must mean free of cost. I
guess I was supposed to have paid," then go back to the Perl docs to
find the author listed as Tom Christiansen, but *not* read the
copyright part of the same document, assume Tom C. is the guy who
wanted them to pay, and then think "gee, what a jerk, he wanted me to
pay and I didn't."
People, how likely is this scenario? How likely is it that someone
would:
a) see the FSF thing in the first place
b) not get just a little suspicious that the FSF doesn't mean "free of
cost" since they got Perl free and there's all that propaganda on
www.gnu.org
c) find Tom C.'s name but not his copyright
d) actually care one way or the other about Tom while being totally
ignorant of free software
?
Come on. It's much more likely that they would see Tom's rantings here
and think "gee, what a flamer."
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 05:10:24 GMT
From: galibert@pobox.com (Olivier Galibert)
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <slrn6ma25u.78f.galibert@renaissance.loria.fr>
In article <6k2ur0$jut$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, Tom Christiansen wrote:
>I'm sorry Barry, but when Joe Anybody hears the word "free", his thought
>is "gratis", not "libre". Go ask someone on the street what a "free
>lunch", a "free computer", a "free hamburger", or some "free software"
>are. Heck, I'll bet they even get the wrong idea about "free rooms".
>Go ahead. This is all very misleading.
Then ask anybody about "free speech" or "freedom of press". This is
only a matter of context. The bad thing being that for software, both
are valid.
For text coming straight from the gnu's web pages, no matter what you
say, said context is unmistakable.
OG.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 05:47:36 GMT
From: wnoise@ugcs.caltech.edu (Aaron Denney)
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <slrn6ma4bo.r20.wnoise@arachno.ugcs.caltech.edu>
On 22 May 1998 04:27:12 GMT, Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
> In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
> :Please stop with this stupid "free = with ketchup" example. RMS's
> :definition of "free software" is based on one of the many common
> :definitions of the word, he didn't make up his definition out of whole
> :cloth, like you did.
>
> I'm sorry Barry, but when Joe Anybody hears the word "free", his thought
> is "gratis", not "libre". Go ask someone on the street what a "free
> lunch", a "free computer", a "free hamburger", or some "free software"
> are. Heck, I'll bet they even get the wrong idea about "free rooms".
> Go ahead. This is all very misleading.
Oh, please. If he hears the phrases "the free world", "free man", or
"feel free"? Context matters. I really doubt you could find a single
example where Joe Anybody will read "free" as "with ketchup".
--
Aaron Denney
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 06:26:44 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <6k35r4$49m$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
>In article <rjvhqz5xri.fsf@zuse.+dina.kvl.dk>, Per Abrahamsen
><abraham@dina.kvl.dk> wrote:
># So please stop claiming the FSF is lying. That is itself a lie, and
># by spreading lies like that you are hurting the free software community.
>When they go outside of their tiny little circle, it is intentional or
>careless deception, which is the pretty much the same as lying.
...
>It is not hard. In usenet discussions, reference the link as you did. On
>web pages, make a hyperlink from the word "free" to that page. There, now
>you have gone from being irresponsible to responsible (as far as the usage
>of the word is concerned). And it wasn't that hard.
>But since FSF are the ones changing the definitions, it is incumbent on
>them to make it clear what they mean to the rest of the world.
No, it is incumbent on whoever quoted them out of context.
What do you expect the FSF to do, monitor every newsgroup for people
who read something on their web page and are quoting it out of
context?
How on earth did this become the FSF's responsibility? They used a word
quite clearly in their own web page. It was taken out of context by
someone else.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 16:10:16 +1000
From: Geoffrey KEATING <geoffk@discus.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Utilitarian and artistic nature of documentation
Message-Id: <t87m3en8dz.fsf@discus.anu.edu.au>
Scott Erickson <Scott.L.Erickson@HealthPartners.com> writes:
> I agree that program documentation has a utilitarian nature, however, I
> strongly disagree with any explicit or implied claim that program
> documentation does not have an artistic component.
I should probably point out that program _code_ has an artistic
component too. The question is whether you think that it's more
important to let people modify (and possibly ruin) your beautiful code
(or documentation), or ensure that it is kept forever in the form in
which you wrote it, even if that form becomes less useful as time
passes.
--
Geoff Keating <Geoff.Keating@anu.edu.au>
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 05:37:14 GMT
From: mgjv@comdyn.com.au (Martien Verbruggen)
Subject: Re: Why NOT crypt???
Message-Id: <6k32ua$h0b$1@comdyn.comdyn.com.au>
In article <6k2lo9$lh$1@monet.op.net>,
mjd@op.net (Mark-Jason Dominus) writes:
>
> In article <3564A11F.613E2D5F@kodak.com>,
> Brian Mathis <brianm@kodak.com> wrote:
>>crypt() has been around for (I'm guessing) as long as UNIX itself. It is not
>>illegal, unexportable, or anything else.
>
> Cite, please? Crypt is (slightly modified) DES; the key size is 56
> bits, and I believe that it *isn't* exportable under current US
> policies.
I think you might be talking about a different crypt() here. The C
function crypt(3) (or 3C on some systems) is AFAIK available on every
unix system (unless removed for security reasons), and is used to
'encrypt' passwords. It uses a one way hashing algorithm. There is no
decoding. The implementation might differ from platform to platform,
and the value returned by crypt(3) might not be portable between
systems.
The encrypt(3) function is another story, and so is the crypt(1)
command.
Martien
--
Martien Verbruggen |
Webmaster www.tradingpost.com.au | "In a world without fences,
Commercial Dynamics Pty. Ltd. | who needs Gates?"
NSW, Australia |
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 05:43:58 GMT
From: mgjv@comdyn.com.au (Martien Verbruggen)
Subject: Re: Why NOT crypt???
Message-Id: <6k33au$h0b$2@comdyn.comdyn.com.au>
In article <6k1p22$lkm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
pittelli@envmed.rochester.edu writes:
> BUT, could someone PLEASE tell me WHY the hell crypt was not implemented in
> the 5.00402 NT build, WHO was paranoid about WHAT (from people using
> encryption???), and have the developers acknowledged that this implementation
> omission was stupid (at the very least form the standpoint of all the users
> asking for crypt!), or will I need to build a workaround in all my scripts for
> clients b.c. of an expected lack of FUTURE crypt support???
Some system admins don't want people to pick up local passwd files,
and use brute force to guess the passwords. If that local system uses
a non-standard implementation of crypt(3), then it won't be possible
to just transfer the passwd data to another computer and do the crack
attempt there. This would be a fairly sufficient way of stopping
these brute force cracking methods.
In general that means that the crypt(3) function simply is not defined
in unistd.h, and/or not available in the libraries. When perl configures
itself, it checks for the presence of this function, and if it can't
find it, it can't implement it. That is where the warning comes from.
For the win32 port: crypt is not very standard on win32 platforms.
When perl configures itself there, it can most likely not find any
crypt() function, and therefore cannot implement it. Simply shipping
an implementation of crypt() with perl would not fix this, because
that implementation most likely would differ from the one that really
is used on your system, which would render it absolutely useless.
I might be wrong about this reason for the 5.004_02 port not having
implemented crypt, and if I am, Gurusamy Sarathy will doubtless
correct me :)
Martien
--
Martien Verbruggen |
Webmaster www.tradingpost.com.au | "In a world without fences,
Commercial Dynamics Pty. Ltd. | who needs Gates?"
NSW, Australia |
------------------------------
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 2680
**************************************
