[9065] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2683 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri May 22 08:18:28 1998
Date: Fri, 22 May 98 05:02:22 -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: 2683
Today's topics:
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Stefaan A Eeckels)
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 <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Olivier Galibert)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <JYoungman@vggas.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <JYoungman@vggas.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <JYoungman@vggas.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <JYoungman@vggas.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Bart Schuller)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (le Fanttme)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (le Fanttme)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (le Fanttme)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (le Fanttme)
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 <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 09:12:21 GMT
From: Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k3fhl$6mh$2@justus.ecc.lu>
In article <7D7029AFEBA20062.89F409A12AA477D7.2EF1F061EDF38122@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme) writes:
> 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.
Maybe Mr Christiansen has got shares in the telecom operators and
electrical utilities - after all, these are the companies getting
rich off electronic distribution.
Again - can mere reproduction also include the time I spend in
making the reproduction, or is it limited to the costs of the
paper and ink (in others words, can only the paper manufacturer
benefit from Mr Christiansen's efforts, or can I too make a
living).
I think we're splitting hairs here.
--
Stefaan
--
PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)
___________________________________________________________________
Williams and Holland's Law: If enough data is collected,
anything may be proven by statistical methods.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 09:45:13 GMT
From: Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k3hf9$6mh$3@justus.ecc.lu>
In article <6k2hgc$6dg$4@blue.hex.net>,
cbbrowne@news.hex.net (Christopher Browne) writes:
> RMS can only say so many "horrendously controversial" things before
> people start tuning him and his work out.
But RMS didn't say anything controversial. He said that there
is no free (in the FSF sense) documentation for Perl *in an FSF
document*. Reading the Perldoc copyright statements shows that
he's right (according, obviously, to his own use of the word
'free'). His statement is thus *not* controversial.
It's fairly obvious that the FSF use of 'free' is an accepted
meaning of the word, but that not everyone sees it as the
first meaning. Having (f)lame wars about what's the first or
second meaning of a word is silly, and ignores the fluid nature
of human language.
--
Stefaan
--
PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)
___________________________________________________________________
Williams and Holland's Law: If enough data is collected,
anything may be proven by statistical methods.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 08:58:26 GMT
From: Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k3eni$6mh$1@justus.ecc.lu>
In article <m3u36jqfkc.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>,
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
> In comp.lang.perl.misc, Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>
>> If the documentation author has made his documetation free, he's not
>> expecting royalties, no matter what form it's published in. Why should
>> royalties be due for hardcopy books when they're not expected for
>> electronic copies?
>
> It's not an unknown concern. We have the same issue with other free
> software licenses; people are often willing to give away their work
> provided that others do not charge for it, but are unwilling to see others
> make money off of their work.
Unless you're having a free (ahem, no charge) network connection, or
use your company's feed to download Perl for your own use, why do
you think electronic distribution doesn't make money for someone
else but the original author?
If I download a copy of the Perl docs, I contribute to the
financial well-being of my ISP, the phone company, the
electricity utility (and I might have forgotten a few).
When I buy a book, I just pay other intermediaries.
This is a silly distinction.
The Perldoc license says that I can charge only the reproduction
costs - can some tell me if that can include the time I spend
reproducing, packaging, mailing, or *only* the costs of the
materials involved? In other words, can or can't I make a living
out of making the copy?
Gals & guys, IMHO we're discussing how many archangles can dance
on the point of a needle ;-)
--
Stefaan
--
PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)
___________________________________________________________________
Williams and Holland's Law: If enough data is collected,
anything may be proven by statistical methods.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 12:34:09 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2ogwqh9we.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
cbbrowne@news.hex.net (Christopher Browne) writes:
> And it's real interesting that if anything truly *horrendous* starts
> happening, there are increasing numbers of possible alternatives to FSF
> developments:
>
> - TenDRA as an alternative to GCC
>
> - XEmacs as alternative to GNU Emacs
>
> - The "FreshMeat" web site lists an Objective C "preprocessor" rather
> like CFRONT
>
> - People have been using BYACC rather than Bison for *years* due to the
> oft-cited licensing restrictions on Bison output. (Yes, I know that
> it's not supposed to be an issue anymore.)
>
> RMS can only say so many "horrendously controversial" things before
> people start tuning him and his work out.
However, like with some president that forces democratic elections to
be held and later gets disappointed that he does not get elected
himself, there is no reason at all to start "tuning his work out" if
you no longer like him. The GPL is a public license, the original
author does not hold any special position to the software under it as
long as its derivative live under the GPL continues.
XEmacs is (by now) a legal offspring of Emacs, and not at all
independent or emancipated or whatever from Emacs, just from FSF
development. A similar thing (though in a minor degree) is the
"historical necessity" of egcs which was done, however, in a way
considered the least offensive and painful (that is, all development
is recontributed to the FSF, although no longer under the control of
it).
Whatever you think of the "religion" and other bad names you want to
use with regard to RMS, he has taken appropriate measures that the
future existence of his creations is free from being linked to his own
apart from him being most important current maintainer and advisor
for quite a few products.
Even if RMS will end up in jail, in the madhouse, or even at
Microsoft, his creations remain for the use of the free software
community. No reason to shun them.
--
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 12:40:27 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2n2cah9lw.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
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.
Check again. The MPL license for Mozilla, the free version of
Netscape, allows you to make changes to the original source code
*only* under the condition that you make each such change, how
idiosyncratic it might be, publicly available.
--
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 12:44:20 +0200
From: Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <byzpgapou3.fsf@bolzano.math.ethz.ch>
Ron House <house@usq.edu.au> writes:
> But this is the whole problem: they did not use any
> recognised meaning of the word: they made up a new
> meaning.
Huh? They used an existing meaning (i.e. 'free citizens', more eloquent
people than I have come up with better examples). Yes it is fairly new
to have that meaning applied to an object, but then again this whole
free software thing is fairly new.
Why do you think RMS used this word? Do you think he threw darts at a
list of adjectives?
Like I said I would have prefered if had taken a new word (possibly
one from another language where the meaning is clear. Does RMS speak
any "foreign" languages?)
Jan
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 10:48:49 GMT
From: galibert@pobox.com (Olivier Galibert)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <slrn6mam0g.8a3.galibert@renaissance.loria.fr>
In article <m2n2cah9lw.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>, David Kastrup wrote:
>Check again. The MPL license for Mozilla, the free version of
>Netscape, allows you to make changes to the original source code
>*only* under the condition that you make each such change, how
>idiosyncratic it might be, publicly available.
You shouldn't base statements on beta versions of licenses. Like the
GPL, the {N,M}PL source distribution follows the binary distribution
paths (see the "anyone to whom you made an Executable version
available" part).
3.2. Availability of Source Code.
Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute
must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this
License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an
accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made
an Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic
Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve (12)
months after the date it initially became available, or at least six
(6) months after a subsequent version of that particular Modification
has been made available to such recipients. You are responsible for
ensuring that the Source Code version remains available even if the
Electronic Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party.
OG.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:08:54 +0100
From: James Youngman <JYoungman@vggas.com>
To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u1g1i2obwp.fsf@noisy.vggas.com>
>>>>> "ra" == Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
ra> It's just not GPLed documentation.
Speaking of that, has anyone actually *seen* any documentation
published under the GPL? I don't think I have.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:05:44 +0100
From: James Youngman <JYoungman@vggas.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u1k97eoc1z.fsf@noisy.vggas.com>
>>>>> "tc" == Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
tc> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
tc> In comp.lang.perl.misc,
tc> Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra <leandro@lge.com.br> writes:
tc> : Question: does ORA contributes to FSF? Or it only profits from GNU
tc> :without ever giving something back? This isn't forbidden, but it would
tc> :stink.
tc> Question: does FSF contributes to ORA?
Yes. It creates and improves free software for people to use. These
people then buy ORA books. The FSF increases ORA's sales. There are
many ORA books on GPLed and FSF-derived programs (and many also on
free software that doesn't belong to the FSF, BIND and X11 being two
examples).
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:16:04 +0100
From: James Youngman <JYoungman@vggas.com>
To: news@russo.org (Chris Russo)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u17m3eobkr.fsf@noisy.vggas.com>
>>>>> "cr" == Chris Russo <news@russo.org> writes:
cr> Why try to bend the English language to your group's wishes?
cr> Why not just use the language correctly and be understood?
It would be nice to do that, but there is no English word which is
closer in meaning to that which the FSF means when it says "Free". If
there had been one, the FSF would have used it instead of "Free".
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:12:34 +0100
From: James Youngman <JYoungman@vggas.com>
To: cls@seawood.org (Christopher Seawood)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u1d8d6obql.fsf@noisy.vggas.com>
>>>>> "cs" == Christopher Seawood <cls@seawood.org> writes:
cs> Each of the documents you posted refer to software which perl
cs> documents, although in electronic format, are not. Even the GPL
cs> has a similar no-modify copyright, so how can anyone behind the
cs> GNU project say that the no-modify copyright is ok for the GPL
cs> but not for perl documentation? Sounds a bit hypocritical, IMO.
Hang on. GNU documentation isn't under that "no-modify" license.
Only the GPL document itself is. That's very sensible IMHO.
After all, if that was the case somebody could publish a program under
a license that looked very much like the GPL, and in fact contained
some changes that unsuspecting people could fall foul of, thinking
that it was just the familiar and trusted GPL they were dealing with,
not some wolf dressed as a lamb.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 13:03:21 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2lnruh8jq.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
kfox@pt0204.pto.ford.com (Ken Fox) writes:
> That opinion isn't very consistent with your idea of authorship. The
> GNU/Linux issue has been thoroughly beat to death, but here's my
> understanding of the events:
>
> The FSF works on a "GNU System" (Unix clone) for a decade.
Right. Mainly concentrating on components, lobbying for others. A
lot of work goes into making those components be very portable (see
configure, autoconf, automake) to arbitrary systems.
> Linux is released as basically a "GNU System" with a different
> kernel.
Linux is developed independently and released as a kernel. People
start making distributions and useful systems by them, mostly by
taking GNU utilities and other freely available components, components
that RMS has in part also planned in for GNU. It turns out not too
difficult to adapt the GNU components to the Linux environment,
because both try to adhere to Posix and other standards closely, and
the GNU utilities in particular are very portable, anyway. As the GNU
system at that point of time is missing a lot of other stuff except
the kernel, quite a lot of system components of Liux are written from
scratch, others adapted from BSDish systems (those have never before
been adapted to any GNU system).
> The FSF starts taking serious heat for "wasting" time on the Hurd and
> the development of the "GNU System."
Mostly by nitwits. I would not call it "serious heat", but there were
people scoffing mostly the Hurd (not GNU). Perhaps sufficient to get
upset.
> RMS asks Linus if he can call Linux "GNU/Linux."
> Linus says ok.
> The term "lignux" appears in an emacs release, which everybody agrees
> is stupid, and which is later changed to "GNU/Linux."
> People who don't like RMS or the FSF hate putting "GNU" in the Linux
> name because it recognizes the contribution of the FSF in building
> Linux, so a flame war errupts.
You are wildly assuming reasons for people's objections in a wild
over-generalization. I don't like putting "GNU" in the name because
it makes the name from a snappy term and brand name into some
technical term breathing political correctness all over it. It feels
like addressing your own children with full name all of the time. Of
course it is correct in some way, but names are not there for being
correct. Names are there for calling things.
> The flame war doesn't resolve anything, but it clearly shows that there
> is no such thing a "a" free software community.
Quite. Even though the differences are quite smaller than the ruckus
would lead to suspect.
> Linux has a *lot* of GNU software in it. It doesn't *have* to be
> called "GNU/Linux," but that seems like a nice recognition of the
> GNU Project. It's important to remember that not every Linux system
> is a GNU system. If somebody ships the Linux kernel with an otherwise
> BSD system, the name should probably be "BSD/Linux."
The networking *is* already BSD. And Linux ships with X as well. So
we'd have BSD/GNU/X-Linux. But that is not even the point. RMS does
not want to have Linux called GNU/Linux because it contains many GNU
components. He wants to have it called that way because it is in
large parts assembled from those components that he himself would have
used for assembling the GNU system.
He wants to have recognition for his idea of a free system, and for
those parts of his exertions that have created optimal conditions for
Linux to take off like a rocket.
Unfortunately, the name was perhaps the single worst place where he
should have placed his demands. Even an artist making his work with
*excellent* and versatile components from a grand manufacturer (and
that is what the GNU components are, mostly) feels he should be
allowed to name his work.
--
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 13:08:00 +0200
From: schuller@tanglefoot.lunatech.net (Bart Schuller)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k3mag$or5$1@tanglefoot.lunatech.com>
In article <Bw891.110$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>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!
Here in Holland, we have a large chain of record stores called the
"Free Record Shop". You have to pay for your CDs there and because it's
a large chain, I wouldn't even call it "libre".
--
The idea is that the first face shown to people is one they can readily
accept - a more traditional logo. The lunacy element is only revealed
subsequently, via the LunaDude. [excerpted from the Lunatech Identity Manual]
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 13:15:45 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2k97eh7z2.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme) writes:
> 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.
"Free" is not tantamount to "GPL", even for the FSF. The license in
question disallows making profits off the documentation, for example
disallowing RedHat to include it on their CDROMs (they make their
living off the CDROMs, so obviously can't provide them "at cost").
The license in question disallows any further development of the docs
by anybody but the author, even if the author were to become sick,
disinterested, or (heaven forbid) dead.
This sort of license is not appropriate for something essential for
the use of free software. "Free" documentation, in the sense of
software freeness, would allow redistribution for profit, and
modification by others should the need arise, even if just to provide
viable options in the case of casualities. Such a license need not be
the GPL, but it should at a minimum address the issue of commercial
redistribution and permission of ongoing development by others if it
is to be fully useful for free software use.
Of course, Tom is free to license his work under whatever license he
likes, but his really wild accusations at RMS for putting on his task
list a free documentation for Perl as desirable are uncalled for.
--
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 13:12:17 +0200
From: Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <bywwbepnji.fsf@bolzano.math.ethz.ch>
tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) writes:
> 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.
This is one thing I do not get. The documentation that comes with
Perl 5 not only is extensive but also (apart from the faq) under the
same copyight as Perl, i.e. free-libre. I just ftp'ed the source again
and I surely canot see any restrictive copyrights.
Jan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:19:19 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <5D477EF9ADF9340C.9A26ECAEE0E326D0.E84EBB992569E55E@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 22 May 1998 08:58:26 GMT, Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu (Stefaan A
Eeckels) wrote:
>Unless you're having a free (ahem, no charge) network connection, or
>use your company's feed to download Perl for your own use, why do
>you think electronic distribution doesn't make money for someone
>else but the original author?
Because an infrastructure charge does not constitute a publication
charge. When you're being charged for your network connection, you're
not being charged for the "publication" of the perl documentation.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fantome*@*vnet*.*net * http://fantome.vnet.net/
---------------* aziegler*@*vcela*.*com * -------------------------
Remove the stars to email me * Ni bhionn an rath ach
my words my opinions my ideas * mar a mbionn an smacht
-- I Argue Ideas, Not Beliefs: Give Up Your Dogma --
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 13:23:29 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2hg2ih7m6.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, Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
> :FSF is non-profit, so how can it profit from ORA?
>
> I meant "to profit" in the sense of "to benefit". How could
> you think anything else? :-)
This from the person who explains that people associating "free" with
anything but "gratis" are liars?
--
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 13:18:24 +0200
From: Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <bysom2pn9b.fsf@bolzano.math.ethz.ch>
Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
> >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?
That is why I was using "may".
Jan
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 13:21:29 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2iumyh7pi.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,
> Klaus.Schilling@home.ivm.de writes:
> :Once the guile regexp handling is powerful enough, there won't be any need
> :for perl in GNU-grown stuff anymore. Even the whole perl could one day be
> :emulated from within guile, the powertool of the gnu generation.
>
> 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.
I would suggest that you and Klaus Schilling don't try to discuss with
one another. He is sort of an enfant terrible in gnu.misc.discuss on
the GNU pro side, you are about the same on the contra side. Your
arguments will be as noncongruent as to not render an attempt at
discussion worthwhile.
--
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 11:26:40 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <2A49E66924CD5BC3.88B39213036DF27F.E69C143516A17031@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 22 May 1998 09:12:21 GMT, Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu (Stefaan A
Eeckels) wrote:
>In article <7D7029AFEBA20062.89F409A12AA477D7.2EF1F061EDF38122@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
> fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme) writes:
>> 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.
>Maybe Mr Christiansen has got shares in the telecom operators and
>electrical utilities - after all, these are the companies getting
>rich off electronic distribution.
But not as publishers. Their profit off electronic distribution is
incidental to the fact that for the few seconds/minutes it takes to
download you are downloading Mr. Christiansen's work. Legally, ISPs,
on-line services, and phone companies are not considered publishers.
>Again - can mere reproduction also include the time I spend in
>making the reproduction, or is it limited to the costs of the
>paper and ink (in others words, can only the paper manufacturer
>benefit from Mr Christiansen's efforts, or can I too make a
>living).
Well, if you're going to use calligraphy to illuminate Mr.
Christiansen's works, I'm sure that you can charge a living wage for
it.
-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 11:28:16 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <113648DDED8873FA.1DEAE20FE993342F.53E915D02AB6ECBA@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 22 May 1998 04:56:05 GMT, trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
wrote:
>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.
This assumes, of course, that ISPs are publishers. They are not. The
amount of time that they are transmitting Mr. Christiansen's document
is insignificant. They make pennies for the transmission -- if that
much.
-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 11:31:07 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <B6571D4A0EF518CD.F5EE039CA25D3F82.ABA672963CD0500A@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 22 May 1998 02:22:47 -0700, tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith) wrote:
>Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>>Now, as to modification, why would screw with something counter to its
>>author's intentions and wishes? That's evil. And if you don't want
>>to do something to fight the original author, then the author will
>>be happy to apply your patches. It's *his* work, damn it, not yours.
>>Again I ask: what happened to basic respect for others' work here?
>
>Some people would like to have documentation that they can change
>without having to contact and coordinate with the original author.
If the documentation needs to be changed for general publication, then
the original author should still be the source for those changes if
appropriate (that is, the changed behaviour is going in the main
distribution of the project).
>Or perhaps the changes are extensive and specialized, so the original
>author does not want to incorporate them.
Then they should be in a separate document.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fantome*@*vnet*.*net * http://fantome.vnet.net/
---------------* aziegler*@*vcela*.*com * -------------------------
Remove the stars to email me * Ni bhionn an rath ach
my words my opinions my ideas * mar a mbionn an smacht
-- I Argue Ideas, Not Beliefs: Give Up Your Dogma --
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 13:37:44 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2g1i2h6yf.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> People were bundling the internet faqs and charging folks $100 for the
> CDs and doing no work on their own, nor paying royalties to the author.
> I don't permit that.
Why? Obviously they were making those FAQs available to people who
would, for lack of knowledge or advertising, not have been able to
figure out how to get a free copy. They were making up for your lack
in public relation and distribution, and getting paid for it. Now if
they had given those people the stuff bereft of original copyright
notices and licenses or with a restriction not to redistribute, *that*
would have been very impolite. If they did this on GPLed documents,
it would even have been illegal.
> You will not use me for your profit. I want people to be able to
> get it for free. That's my bottom line. Tricking them into
> thinking they have to pay you a buttload just to get what they can
> get *for free* is morally corrupt.
I am paying good money for buying RedHat Linux distributions, and I
don't grudge them the money. I know I can hand the stuff on freely, I
know that I could get it for "free" on the Internet with just a day of
download time (we Germans have no such thing as free local calls,
BTW). I even know that I can get it for $2 from people just copying
the RedHat CD images. But I buy their stuff because I appreciate the
way they are "bundling" things and taking pains to reach people in the
best way. If you are prohibiting them to put your stuff on their
CDroms, but are allowing the $2 cheap copiers of their distributions
to do so, you harm the company that is actually engaged in actively
developing free software.
Personally, I think it a good idea to let the free market handle
distribution of free software. Prohibiting profits is not going to
help there.
> You're supporting commerical trickery and fleecing of the ignorant
> into paying for what's free. I oppose it. Now, who's really for free
> software here?
OK, so your point is that RedHat is commercial tricking and fleecing
the ignorant into paying for their distribution of free software. And
that anybody supporting them in this is against free software, right?
--
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 13:42:14 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2emxmh6qx.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 gnu.misc.discuss,
> jwe@bevo.che.wisc.edu (John W. Eaton) writes:
> :It's sad to see someone for whom I've had a lot of respect suddenly
> :start flaming like this. What snapped?
>
> People sent me mail. People started distributing (or told me they
> would) lobotomized Perl. So I sought out why. And it distressed me.
>
> 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.
There are people making money off distributing free software. RedHat
for example is doing a very good job with that. Your license does not
permit making use of your documentations in that way. Please state
whether you would rather want to have RedHat distribute the Perl docs
together with Perl or not. If you do, you should change the license
in a way that allows commercial redistribution.
Until you do, please stop calling the FSF liars.
Thank you,
--
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 13:49:25 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2d8d6h6ey.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
smcnabb@interlog.com (Steve McNabb) writes:
> Ok -- now, the FSF seems to be putting forward the idea that anyone
> who doesn't subscribe to their concept of 'free' (hmm...if I can't
> use the code in the examples for whatever the hell I want, is that
> so free?) is a moral leper. Guess what FSF? you don't have a
> monopoly on the idea that good software should be freely available
> to anyone who wants to use it.
You should not confuse the wild accusations of Tom for the FSF's
opinion. The FSF is quite fine with other forms of free software than
GPLed software. They encourage the use of the GPL because they think
it best for the promotion of free software. But they will not
encourage any split-off work for software that is reasonably free.
A documentation that is not permitted to be redistributed by people
making money from redistribution and doing a good job at it (like
RedHat), and that does not permit any maintenance except by the
original author, even if he were to die or became disinterested in his
work or unable to keep up with the development, is not what the FSF
considers as sufficiently free as to not bother thinking about
alternatives.
The FSF certainly has no monopoly on the idea that good software
should be freely available to anyone who wants to use it. But Tom's
idea to prohibit anybody that is as good in distributing free software
as to be able to make a profit from it to actually do so, as well as
his idea that he must prohibit anyone else to ever maintain versions
of his documentation might not be the best realization of the idea
that software should be freely available.
--
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 13:51:24 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2btsqh6bn.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> 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.
You are, of course, aware that the Linux kernel as well as practically
all system utilities written specifically for it are released under
the GPL?
--
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: 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 2683
**************************************
