[9066] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2684 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri May 22 08:18:30 1998
Date: Fri, 22 May 98 05:03:30 -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: 2684
Today's topics:
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Tim Smith)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <JYoungman@vggas.com>
Re: Help! I need a script put up a new message every da <perlguy@inlink.com>
Re: I can't use any modules in FreeBSD! (Steffen Beyer)
Re: More double standards out of the FSF <JYoungman@vggas.com>
Re: Quiet summary <millNO@SPAMludd.luth.se>
Re: Quiet summary (Mike Whitaker)
Re: Randon files in Perl 5? <perlguy@inlink.com>
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Who cares! <perlguy@inlink.com>
Re: Why NOT crypt??? <neeri@iis.ee.ethz.ch>
Re: Why NOT crypt??? <jgoldberg@dial-but-dont-spam.pipex.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 02:55:41 -0700
From: tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k3i2t$naa$1@halcyon.com>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>I want people to be able to steal my coding solutions for their
>proprietary code without having to release their own additions
>even if they ship it as a binary.
We've had enough trouble overloading "free". It's probably not a good
idea to start overloading "steal".
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:00:29 +0100
From: James Youngman <JYoungman@vggas.com>
To: "Michael C. Grant" <mcgrant@mindspring.com>, tchrist@mox.perl.com
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <u1n2caocaq.fsf@noisy.vggas.com>
>>>>> "mcg" == Michael C Grant <mcgrant@mindspring.com> writes:
mcg> I've got to agree with Tom here. GPL-ed software is a lot
mcg> _less_ free than the examples found in the Perl
mcg> documentation.
Yes, yes, but:-
1. Nobody is asking Tom to change the license on his documentation.
2. Nobody is suggesting that GPLed documentation should be written.
3. The point of that task list entry is to encourage someone to write
Perl documentation that users are allowed to modify and impove.
Tom's existing documentation doesn't allow this.
Essentially, the FSF is suggesting that someone produce Perl
documentation that is published under a license which is closer to the
license for the Perl *code* than the license for the existing Perl
*documentation*.
Nobody is suggesting that anybody do anything with Tom's work that he
has said he would object to, so what's the problem here?
[CC: mcg, tc]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:57:55 GMT
From: Brent Michalski <perlguy@inlink.com>
Subject: Re: Help! I need a script put up a new message every day on a web page.
Message-Id: <35655A33.59DABA09@inlink.com>
Have you tried writing one?
This isn't the comp.lang.perl.misc.we'll.write.your.programs.for.you
group. That is on the OTHER news server.
Brent
Nico Princely wrote:
>
> I need a script put up a new message every day on a web page. So I can
> automate things.
> I need it for free too.......
>
> --
>
> Nico Princely E-mail: nico@infonet2000.com
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 08:46:43 GMT
From: sb@engelschall.com (Steffen Beyer)
Subject: Re: I can't use any modules in FreeBSD!
Message-Id: <6k3e1j$1qj$1@en1.engelschall.com>
Matthew Sielski <msielski@mailexcite.net> wrote:
> I have used Perl under NT and BSD Unix but have recently been trying it
> on a FreeBSD system (release 2.2.5 Nov. '97). On this machine I can run
> any Perl code as long as it does not import modules with the "use"
> function. If I try to run a program as simple as this:
(BTW, this is not really a Perl-related question.)
FreeBSD comes shipped with perl version 4.036 (where it is used for commands
such as "which", for instance). This perl version comes first in your search
path.
Change your search path to include the directory which contains perl 5
*BEFORE* the directory containing perl 4.
Yours,
--
Steffen Beyer <sb@engelschall.com>
Free Perl and C Software for Download: www.engelschall.com/u/sb/download/
"Perl is like sex: If you never had it, you wonder what the fuss is all
about. Once you had it, you never want to be without it again." (unknown)
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:31:12 +0100
From: James Youngman <JYoungman@vggas.com>
To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: More double standards out of the FSF
Message-Id: <u14syioavj.fsf@noisy.vggas.com>
>>>>> "ra" == Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
ra> Simple politeness seems to be thrown out the window in these
ra> discussions far too often.
That's Usenet :( I suspect that if Usenet Faces were more popular,
this would happen somewhat less.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:03:06 +0200
From: Olof Oberg <millNO@SPAMludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Quiet summary
Message-Id: <35655B6A.21424927@SPAMludd.luth.se>
Tom Christiansen wrote:
> In comp.lang.perl.misc, lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) writes:
> :And this
> :member of the Perl community knows full well that rms has a very
> :particular definition of "free".
>
> The word you are looking for there is not "particular", but "peculiar:
> one's own; belonging solely or especially to an individual; not possessed
> by others; of private, personal, or characteristic possession and use;
> not owned in common or in participation."
>From http://www.perl.com/opensource.html
One of the key decisions reached by this group was to promote the
term "Open Source" software in place of "free software."
So "free software" and "open source software" is interchangable.
Lets go to http://www.opensource.org for a correct definition.
(open source is the marketing name for free software according
to the FAQ here)
1. Free Redistribution
3. Derived Works
The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support
independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection.
For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to
experiment with and redistribute modifications.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license
traps that prevent open source from being used commercially.
We want commercial users to join our community, not feel
excluded from it. [from the explanation]
>From the PerlFAQ
Any commercial use of any portion of this document without
prior written authorization by its authors will be subject
to appropriate action.
My conclusion is that the Perl documentation is not open source
and therefore not free either. Free of charge yes, but not free
as defined above.
Lets just drop the subject altogether. I doubt anyone will
start with that task or even have the knowledge to do it as
good you have. It would more or less only have any significance
to those who want to make money of selling the documentation
anyway. For the rest of us (atleast me) we rather buy the Camel
books and use the documentation that comes with Perl itself.
/mill
--
#############################################################
# millNO@SPAMludd.luth.se # http://pedgr571.sn.umu.se/~mill #
#############################################################
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:36:43 GMT
From: mrw@malay.entropic.co.uk (Mike Whitaker)
Subject: Re: Quiet summary
Message-Id: <slrn6maold.dku.mrw@malay.entropic.co.uk>
In article <35655B6A.21424927@SPAMludd.luth.se>, Olof Oberg wrote:
>6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license
> traps that prevent open source from being used commercially.
> We want commercial users to join our community, not feel
> excluded from it. [from the explanation]
>
>From the PerlFAQ
> Any commercial use of any portion of this document without
> prior written authorization by its authors will be subject
> to appropriate action.
>
>My conclusion is that the Perl documentation is not open source
>and therefore not free either. Free of charge yes, but not free
>as defined above.
I don't think the two clauses you quote are necessarily using the phrase
'commercial' use the same way.
The Open Source definition is about 'making use of the software in a
commercial environment'. The PerlFAQ one is about 'making a profit
directly by selling a portion of the document'.
--
Mike Whitaker: Sysadmin, Entropic Cambridge Research Labs
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:17:19 GMT
From: Brent Michalski <perlguy@inlink.com>
Subject: Re: Randon files in Perl 5?
Message-Id: <35655EBF.CDFA826B@inlink.com>
Do you mean "random access" files or just "random" files?
I am guessing that you mean "random".
Either way, the answer (AFAIK), is yes.
Brent
Copyright 1998 Brent Michalski
Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted without royalty as
long as you were standing on your head when you read this notice. ;-)
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 13:25:47 +0200
From: Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <bypvh6pmx0.fsf@bolzano.math.ethz.ch>
Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
> [ FUT: gnu.misc.discuss ]
I disobeyed.
> > The lie that Perl's documentation is not free. It is.
>
> It is not free by the definition of "free" given in
>
> <URL:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html>
Please point to a specific place in the licence of the perl
documentation (faq exlcuded) where it conflicts with FSF-free?
I just checked the perl source and to me it seems they are under the
same licence as perl is.
I could be mistaken of course.
Jan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:04:08 GMT
From: Brent Michalski <perlguy@inlink.com>
Subject: Who cares!
Message-Id: <35655BA8.593015CF@inlink.com>
Look, there is now more crap in the newsgroup about the *free licensing*
issue than there is about Perl!
I really don't give a shit about what the license says, as long as you
aren't making profits off of someone else's work, I am sure that you
will be ok.
If everyone wants to keep bickering about this, I suggest starting an
alt.free.license.bickering group and keep it out of the
comp.lang.PERL.misc group!
Have a good weekend!
Brent
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:55:44 +0200
From: Matthias Neeracher <neeri@iis.ee.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: Why NOT crypt???
Message-Id: <86af8ahbof.fsf@gwaihir.ee.ethz.ch>
Brian Mathis <brianm@kodak.com> writes:
> Stuart McDow wrote:
>
> > It wasn't implemented because going to jail is a Bad Thing.
> Please don't respond to posts for which you have no correct information to
> offer.
Tweet! Unnecessary roughness!
> The original poster is talking about the 'crypt()' function, NOT
> "encryption".
True.
> crypt() has been around for (I'm guessing) as long as UNIX itself.
Probably not in the current form, though, as crypt is based on DES and UNIX
predates DES.
> It is not illegal, unexportable, or anything else. It is simply a one way
> hashing algorithm in which you cannot "decrypt". This is what is used for
> UNIX password security.
Yes.
> "Encryption", on the other hand, is the use of digital technology to hide
> data for later retrieval. Some forms of this are restricted by the US
> government export laws.
Your summary of the *theory* is absolutely correct, but I'm afraid you're
missing a few *practical* complications:
- Implementing the Perl crypt() function on any UN*X derived system is
unproblematic, as you simply can link to the system C library.
- If, however, you want to implement crypt() on any system which doesn't ship
the underlying crypt(3) library call with the OS, you have to provide
source code.
- Now, if you look at a source code implementation of crypt(3), you will
notice that it has the (in this case unwelcome) property of also being
usable as a normal DES encryption with minimal changes (at least the one
implementation that I've looked at has this property). DES *is* still
export restricted, AFAIK.
- Furthermore, even though crypt(3) *is* legal to export, potential US
redistributors (especially CD-ROM publishers) tend to get nervous as soon
as they notice that it's included in source form, and I find it hard to
blame them, given that many of them do not quite have the firepower &
financial resources to match the US government, and even *winning* such a
legal case can be awfully costly and time consuming.
- Last of all, what good is crypt() in Perl? Its main use, as far as I can
tell, is to verify the quality of passwords in UN*Xish password files (OS
and WWW), and in general, there is no reason why this task can't be done
on the UN*X machine itself (especially if you have *legitimate* grounds
to verify the password files).
Therefore, I can fully understand why some authors of sub-Unix (tm) ports
believe that the risks and annoyances of including crypt() outweigh the (fairly
slim) benefits, even though I personally *do* include crypt() in MacPerl and
have seen fairly authoritative legal arguments that it is legal to do so in
both source and binary form.
Matthias
--
Matthias Neeracher <neeri@iis.ee.ethz.ch> http://www.iis.ee.ethz.ch/~neeri
"Using encryption on the Internet is the equivalent of arranging an armored
car to deliver credit-card information from someone living in a cardboard
box to someone living on a park bench." -- Gene Spafford
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:50:27 +0100
From: "Jeremy Goldberg" <jgoldberg@dial-but-dont-spam.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Why NOT crypt???
Message-Id: <6k3orj$7nv$1@plug.news.pipex.net>
> - Last of all, what good is crypt() in Perl? Its main use, as far as I can
> tell, is to verify the quality of passwords in UN*Xish password files
(OS
> and WWW), and in general, there is no reason why this task can't be done
> on the UN*X machine itself (especially if you have *legitimate* grounds
> to verify the password files).
Well, how about:
When you want to test scripts locally on a Windoze machine.
When you want to be able to encrypt passwords and the like on scripts
running on a Windoze machine.
When you want to send passwords encrypted over the net, but can't (or
don't want to) use SSL or a higher-grade encrypt scheme.
They're fairly legit, no?
------------------------------
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 2684
**************************************
