[9067] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2685 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri May 22 09:27:19 1998
Date: Fri, 22 May 98 06:16:02 -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: 2685
Today's topics:
cksum w/ Perl? <baldwin@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Re: cksum w/ Perl? (Charlie Stross)
DynaLoader on AIX 4.2 <wgg@us.itmasters.com>
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 (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Chris Nandor)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Howard Goldstein)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
HELP: system() sometimes fails (Jeff Hamann)
Re: HELP: system() sometimes fails (Charlie Stross)
Re: More double standards out of the FSF <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: Quiet summary (Chris Nandor)
Re: scope of variables in Perl under Linux <nmx@ResourceInternational.com>
sending mail with exchange <frankie@etsetb.upc.es>
Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software com <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software com <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software com (Chris Nandor)
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit <JYoungman@vggas.com>
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit (Chris Nandor)
Re: Who cares! <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 08:12:19 -0400
From: Rich Baldwin <baldwin@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: cksum w/ Perl?
Message-Id: <35656BA2.C5156018@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov>
I am looking for a Perl script which will compute a CRC32 checksum on a
file. This would
be equivalent to UNIX cksum. I need to run this code on a VAX. Any
pointers?
Thanks RB baldwin@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:31:02 GMT
From: charlie@antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Subject: Re: cksum w/ Perl?
Message-Id: <slrn6martu.sgj.charlie@cs.ed.datacash.com>
On Fri, 22 May 1998 08:12:19 -0400, Rich Baldwin
<baldwin@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>I am looking for a Perl script which will compute a CRC32 checksum on a
>file. This would
>be equivalent to UNIX cksum. I need to run this code on a VAX. Any
>pointers?
Yup: see the Camel book, under unpack(). "You may prefix a field with %number
to indicate that you want it to return a number-bit checksum of the items
instead of the items themselves. Default is a 16-bit checksum." It goes
on to say that:
undef $/;
$checksum = unpack("%32C*", <>) % 32767;
allegedly duplicates the functionality of the System V sum program.
Note that this is _not_ quite the same algorithm as cksum, which uses
the POSIX.2 standard.
-- Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:06:00 -0500
From: "Walter G. Giroir" <wgg@us.itmasters.com>
Subject: DynaLoader on AIX 4.2
Message-Id: <3561E628.EB5FB19F@us.itmasters.com>
I have been working with a perlxs module on solaris with out problems.
In porting
the xs to AIX 4.2, I built perl 5.004_04 on AIX using DynaLoader to load
several
perl Extensions. Using dynaloader in perl on AIX caused perl to fail.
Rebuilding
perl with these extenstions linked in statically, things work fine.
Does Dynaloader work on AIX 4.2 ?
--Walt
wgg@us.itmasters.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:01:22 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <54A6A99DC4E78274.91B57CBCC6C24DD3.4B996C970A126454@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 22 May 1998 12:40:27 +0200, David Kastrup
<dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>barr@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dave Barr) writes:
>
>> In article <6k22d5$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.
You really should look at MPL/NPL 1.0 instead of the 0.9 version where
this was the case. The 1.0 version requires that you make the changes
to the original source code available in the same manner as the GNU
GPL (source follows binaries).
-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 12:09:07 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <A509808EF93A2A0C.F04C5C684FEA5F98.7D84EDF74447FC2E@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On Fri, 22 May 1998 05:51:27 GMT, Barry Margolin
<barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>"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)?
AFAIK, NetWare is an operating system, although there are NetWare
clients for various other operating systems. While Win3.x was clearly
a shell on top of DOS and there is apparently a court that believes
that Win9x is a shell on top of DOS (I'm referring to the results of
the Caldera DR-DOS suit), WinNT and WinCE are truly operating systems.
-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 12:10:15 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <17A3A9996DCF0FE2.2800A4CAF58851A2.1A23B571E8A7640E@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 22 May 1998 09:45:13 GMT, Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu (Stefaan A
Eeckels) wrote:
>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.
The FSF use of 'free' is an accepted meaning of the word ... when
applied to people. Not software.
-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 22:26:57 +1000
From: trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k3quh$i5v$1@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) writes:
>:That restriction means that the documentation is not as free as the
>:software, and it would be very nice to have Perl documentation that
>:was actually free, instead of one which is used as a lever to keep
>:people from making changes to the software.
>What a terribly obvious lie. Please don't repeat it.
>And yes, I know lie is a nasty word. You have said
>a nasty thing.
Where is the lie? You have already told us that you think making
modifications to an authors work is morally wrong. This doesn't seem
such a big leap from there.
It can be quite easily argued that non-modifiable documentation can
be used as a lever to try to stop people modifying software that is
otherwise unmodifiable. I don't think this is necessarily the case
with Perl, but it's still a possibility.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 12:27:10 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k3quu$nlu$6@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, James Youngman <JYoungman@vggas.com> writes:
:It would be nice to do that, but there is no English word which is
:closer in meaning to that which the FSF means when it says "Free".
Unfettered.
--tom
--
It is, of course, written in Perl. Translation to C is left as an
exercise for the reader. :-) --Larry Wall in <7448@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 22:28:49 +1000
From: trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k3r21$i6n$1@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au>
les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>In article <yc74sykdoyu.fsf@shell1.tiac.net>,
>Zach Kessin <zkessin@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>>The FSF in general and RMS in particular seem to be rather steemed now
>>that the Free/Open software movement has started to ignore them. Linux
>>exists because of Linus and company and Perl because of Larry Wall and
>>Randal and Tom (and others of course). I think RMS is annoyed because
>>free software is finaly being taken seriously, and its Linux, Apache
>>and perl that people are looking at.
>And for obvious reasons. These do not have restrictions that prevent
>commercial use or linking with code under different copyrights. People
>can actually use them for something of value.
Oh, right, unlike gcc which is only used for compiling incredible
amounts of software, which isn't valuable at all.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 12:25:52 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k3qsg$nlu$5@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith) writes:
:Some people would like to have documentation that they can change
:without having to contact and coordinate with the original author.
That's not how the Perl distribution works. We have a development
and release team who does coordinates this work. And we work with the
authors to make sure their intentions are followed.
--tom
--
"Noalias must go. This is non-negotiable." --dmr
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 12:33:52 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k3rbg$nlu$7@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
:> I meant "to profit" in the sense of "to benefit". How could
:> you think anything else? :-)
:
:This from the person who explains that people associating "free" with
:anything but "gratis" are liars?
David, David, David. How could you have missed the intended irony?
Must all humor hit one over the head? :-)
--tom
--
I hope to get Perl 5 out this summer, for certain values of summer.
-- <1993Jun5.052825.3897@netlabs.com>
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 22:41:30 +1000
From: trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k3rpq$i7r$1@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au>
Ron House <house@usq.edu.au> writes:
>Jan Vroonhof wrote:
>>
>> pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
>>
>> > I officially redefine "free" as meaning "provided with ketchup". Any
>> > other usage with me is misleading.
>>
>> Putting all sillyness inside, the word 'free' in English does
>> have several meanings in english which lead to all this mess. While it
>> would haven be very much better if the FSF/RMS had not used such an
>> ambivalent term they just made precise which of the meanings of free
>> they meant and are consistent in using it in that way.
>But this is the whole problem: they did not use any
>recognised meaning of the word: they made up a new
>meaning.
No, that meaning has been in place for centuries now.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 22:46:03 +1000
From: trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k3s2b$i9o$1@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au>
Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>In article <6k311d$br$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>,
>Tyson Richard DOWD <trd@cs.mu.oz.au> wrote:
>>I actually think that it is a result of extreme consumerism in modern
>>society that people actually begin to think that when they see the word
>>"free" they are going to get something for nothing.
>>
>>The word sees incredible use in advertising, marketing, etc. The number
>>of advertisements one sees that give something for "free" versus the
>>number of serious discussions of being "free" must seriously change the
>>weightings of these meanings after a while.
>Hmm, do people think they don't have to pay for Pepsi Free?
>Actually, it's interesting: if it were called Free Pepsi, they probably
>would. What a difference Meta-t makes!
I liked that movie about the whale that didn't cost anything,
"Free Willy".
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 22:44:56 +1000
From: trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k3s08$i90$1@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au>
fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fantome) writes:
>On 21 May 1998 14:37:32 -0400, tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
>wrote:
>>Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
>>
>>> I realized that the FSF was lying to the world by saying that Perl's 1,000
>>> pages of document weren't free, and that this dangerous lie was hurting
>>> Perl. It made people think they couldn't include the documentation
>>> with the distribution. This idea of a Perl without documentation must
>>> be stopped.
>>
>>The reason that it isn't free is that if I create a modified copy of
>>Perl, I am prohibited by your license from distributing a modified
>>copy of the documentation to match.
>>
>>That restriction means that the documentation is not as free as the
>>software, and it would be very nice to have Perl documentation that
>>was actually free, instead of one which is used as a lever to keep
>>people from making changes to the software.
>You can't modify the original, but you can make addenda.
This keeps getting brought up. It is a stop-gap solution. If
you really needed to make modifications, this wouldn't work for
long. It would at some stage become easier to replace the entire
documentation set. Which is what the FSF has on its to-do list.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 12:35:13 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k3re1$nlu$8@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
: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
Now that we know that neither of those cases applies here, might we move on?
--tom
--
"It's later than you don't think." --Larry Wall
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:15:48 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <pudge-2205980810120001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>
In article <m2yavuve71.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
# An American citizen may not be taken as a slave, nor sell himself as
# one. It seems that he is not really free, then.
You are correct. Well, he can do those things, but not in the USA.
Almost all freedom has its limits. Maybe all of it does. Except for MY
definition of freedom, which is better than the conventional definitions,
because it is tastier.
--
Chris Nandor mailto:pudge@pobox.com http://pudge.net/
MacPerl: Power and Ease (ISBN 1881957322), http://www.ptf.com/macperl/
%PGPKey = ('B76E72AD', [1024, '0824090B CE73CA10 1FF77F13 8180B6B6'])
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 12:24:03 GMT
From: hgoldste@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <slrn6marj2.tg9.hgoldste@bbs.mpcs.com>
On 22 May 1998 02:30:13 -0700, Tim Smith <tzs@halcyon.com> wrote:
: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
: >It is imperative that no documentation be placed under the GPL due to its
: >insidious viral nature. For example, the Perl documentation is meant to
: >be used to take examples from to use in your programs. We want people
: >to do this.
:
: Add this to your copyright notice:
:
: "The Perl examples in this documentation are in the public
: domain".
:
: (run the exact wording past a copyright lawyer first, of course)
:
: Then, people can use the examples in the own programs *no* *matter*
: *what* license they are using for those programs, just as if they had
: written them themselves.
Your and Tom's exchange remind me of an example of the opposite doc
example I ran into around 2.5 years ago.
In the Linux Programmer's Manual section on (IIRC) IPC were a pair of
trivial and smallish 15 or so line example on creating a SYSV message
queue. Both examples were prominently tagged with a GPL license.
I'm not sure why these (and other) examples in a manual demonstrating
basic, important features of an o/s were themselves GPLd. It seemed
difficult to actually use the features demonstrated in a non-GPLd
program after I'd been contaminated by exposure to the GPL'd example;
there were few if any other practical ways to do it.
Unfortunately for the IP bar the app never made it out of embyronic
stage.
--
The ants are my friends, they're blowing in the wind
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 12:18:41 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k3qf1$nlu$2@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
James Youngman <JYoungman@vggas.com> writes:
:3. The point of that task list entry is to encourage someone to write
: Perl documentation that users are allowed to modify and impove.
: Tom's existing documentation doesn't allow this.
Patches to the Perl distribution are sent via the perlbug program, or
mailed directly to perlbug@perl.com, where they will be reviewed by the
development team. The release manager has final say, (subject to Rule
#1), and particularly in the absence of a works' owner being around,
certainly would try to do the right thing.
It occurs to me that the FSF doesn't actually know how the Perl
developed process really works.
--tom
--
"There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right
keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself."
--J. S. Bach
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 12:15:50 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k3q9m$nlu$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
:Your documentation is neither freely redistributable (as it may not be
:redistributed by free software vendors like RedHat that make a living
:from doing so),
This is false. It may and must be included in a full distribution of Perl.
I've written this before and will make it clearer in the future
copyrights.
:nor freely maintainable as you prohibit any
:modifications by others.
This is false. The Perl release manager (Larry's designated pumpkin
holder) coordinates all maintenance and updates of the Perl set. They are
perfectly allowed to apply fixes and maintenance to me documents, and
I've told them that in person.
:That means that the destiny of the docs in
:question is entirely bound to your destiny and the destiny of your
:interest or capabilites in them.
No, it isn't, as I've shown. Are you happy now?
Listen: the real point is I want these to be free.
If someone is going to separate them off from the Perl distribution,
print them, and sell them for profit, then they can bloody well ask
my permission. Pride of authorship and ownership is a basic human
characteristic.
Each and every "good works" organization (CDs for conference goers,
university students, free unix distriubtions) who has done this has been
immediately and happily granted that permission without royalties or
strings. That's the reality of the siutation. No one who tried to make
a killing, or whom I consider the wrong side of the fence (Monoposoft)
has asked. If they did, I supposed I might consider royalties, but it's
never come up and I've never thought about it.
And I won't tolerate someone hacking up my documents and sending them
around claiming they are "the perl faq". That would be confusing. It is
important that there be One Perl, and important that its documentation
be coordinated with it. That's why requested changes to my works should
either be sent to me (we call this polite respect), or the Perl release
manager. "perlbug@perl.com" is the normal way to submit patches to
the Perl release.
I don't understand why people have a problem with any of that.
--tom
--
"I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating
system, and possibly program, of all time" - Bill Gates, Nov, 1987.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 12:24:31 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k3qpv$nlu$4@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith) writes:
:Add this to your copyright notice:
: "The Perl examples in this documentation are in the public
: domain".
I intend to.
--tom
--
"Espousing the eponymous /cgi-bin/perl.exe?FMH.pl execution model is like
reading a suicide note -- three days too late."
--Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 12:23:23 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k3qnr$nlu$3@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
:Your documentation explicitly prohibits making more
:than copying money with your docs.
That's only if they separate them from the Perl distribution and decide
to publish them in some other format. They're part of Perl, and can
and must be included as is in Perl.
What I don't want to happen is me be surprised to find a for-profit
pamphlet or book containing my separated-out documents that wasn't
coordinated with me. I don't want other people money specifically off of
what I have given the world for free. It doesn't seem right. My reading
of the Artistic Licence is that this is in accord with the Perl way.
--tom
--
There are probably better ways to do that, but it would make the parser
more complex. I do, occasionally, struggle feebly against complexity... :-)
--Larry Wall in <7886@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 07:11:34 +0100
From: jrhamann@nospaminlink.com (Jeff Hamann)
Subject: HELP: system() sometimes fails
Message-Id: <jrhamann-2205980711340001@iits01182.inlink.com>
I am using a perl (5.004) script to launch a unix (DEC 3.2 and 4.0b)
program. The program is called with two quoted command-line parameters
with "&" appended. The entire call looks like this:
$var = "program_name \"parameter 1\" \"parameter 2\" &"
system($var)
It usually works (about 80% of the time) but sometimes the program seems
to launch halfway and the perl script locks up. When I ctrl-c (from what
looks like the locked-up perl script), the ctrl-c is actually passed to
the program and it (the program) exits and I'm returned to the shell
prompt. Basically, all indications are that perl becomes interlocked
somehow with the program launched by the system() command. During lock-up
the program (a comunications server for a piece manufacturing equipment)
actually runs properly. I have checked the $var generated by the perl
script and it's exactly the same as the call used by a (much-less capable)
korn shell script that works 100% of the time.
Trying to fix the problem, I have tried changing the code to use the
system() call like:
system(program_name, "parameter 1", "parameter 2")
but I can't get it to launch with an "&" (tried both: quoted after the
program name and the last parameter) so that's been a moot point.
Does anyone know what I am missing here and how I could fix this? Is there
a known bug with system() in perl 5.004 that could cause this?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Jeff Hamann
jrhamann@inlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:37:42 GMT
From: charlie@antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Subject: Re: HELP: system() sometimes fails
Message-Id: <slrn6masaf.sgj.charlie@cs.ed.datacash.com>
On Fri, 22 May 1998 07:11:34 +0100, Jeff Hamann
<jrhamann@nospaminlink.com> wrote:
>I am using a perl (5.004) script to launch a unix (DEC 3.2 and 4.0b)
>program. The program is called with two quoted command-line parameters
>with "&" appended. The entire call looks like this:
>
> $var = "program_name \"parameter 1\" \"parameter 2\" &"
>
> system($var)
>
>It usually works (about 80% of the time) but sometimes the program seems
>to launch halfway and the perl script locks up.
When you call system() in perl, you're effectively doing a fork() followed
by an exec(). The parent process then waits for the child process to
exit. I'm not 100% certain without knowing a bit more about what you're
doing, but you need to remember that you're not running a program in a
shell, perl is directly exec'ing it; I'd be surprised if that orphan
ampersand turns out to be doing anything. From your description, I guess
what you really want to do is manually fork() and exec() from the child,
without the parent waiting for the child to terminate. Alternatively, instead
of calling system("program, arg1, arg2"), write a simple korn shell
wrapper that positionally substitutes the two parameters from its own
command line and runs the program in the background, and use system()
to call that. (Easier for the inexperienced, but not recommended.)
-- Charlie
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 14:01:42 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: More double standards out of the FSF
Message-Id: <m2af8ah5uh.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us> writes:
> FWIW, I've since clarified it for myself. Unless stated otherwise,
> Perl can be redistributed and/or modified under the terms of either
> the GNU GPL or the Artistic License, as stated in Perl's README.
>
> There are several docs in the Perl distribution that state that they
> must be copied verbatim. Which, of course, means that they may not be
> modified even if the code they document is modified in an allowed
> manner.
Not necessarily.
A license is something that covers a transaction of intellectual
property. If you get a copy of something, you can not do anything
with it without an explicit license given. In the case of CDROMs, the
presence of a "LICENSE" file might be sufficient for you assuming that
the software is covered by the license, even if you have no written
copy of the license present. If single files are exempt without their
status being covered in the license, you can claim an honest mistake
in case this appears before court.
That you did not notice the files being covered by a different license
when you change or sell those files in printed form separately,
however, will be harder to tell to the court.
In order to have things properly legally enforcable, however, it is a
good idea to mention the possible exceptional status of certain files
in the overall license of a 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: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:23:49 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: Quiet summary
Message-Id: <pudge-2205980818120001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>
In article <6k2p36$55t$1@news.NERO.NET>, stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU
(John Stanley) wrote:
# The FSF use of the term "free" is made clear on their website, and to
# expect it to be repeated every time the word "free" appears is just
# ridiculous.
I don't think so. Your analogy was a bit off; when Tom says "MacDonalds
(sic) gives out free catsup (sic ;-)" to people down the street, everyone
undertsands that ketchup is free at McDonald's in the same fashion; the
fact that this free ketchup is contingent on other criteria (the purchase
of a burger) does not change the definition of free, while the FSF *is*
changing (has changed?) said definition.
Furthermore, how hard is it to add a hyperlink? That's what the web is
for, right? I just don't think that is asking too much: a small bit of
work, in my opinion, would greatly improve the situation.
--
Chris Nandor mailto:pudge@pobox.com http://pudge.net/
MacPerl: Power and Ease (ISBN 1881957322), http://www.ptf.com/macperl/
%PGPKey = ('B76E72AD', [1024, '0824090B CE73CA10 1FF77F13 8180B6B6'])
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:52:09 GMT
From: "Nathan Morse" <nmx@ResourceInternational.com>
Subject: Re: scope of variables in Perl under Linux
Message-Id: <01bd8578$aaff9c10$01ceefcf@stay-puft>
Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.980521141004.16724S-100000@user2.teleport.com>...
> On 21 May 1998, Nathan Morse wrote:
> > Subject: scope of variables in Perl under Linux
> Why "under Linux" and not "In South Dakota"? :-)
Linux has lower sales tax. ;^)
> > After a bit of hunting and debugging, I realized that the problem was
> > that @words was empty/undefined outside of init_words(), where it is
> > created, but not via my().
> That is, it's a global variable - so it's not full of data until after
> init_words is called. Is that what you're seeing?
Actually, it is full of data _only_ in init_words (on the
linux system). In the "main" code, and the other subs, it's empty (i.e.
uninitialized).
> My copy of the Llama seems to be omitting a couple of lines from the sub
> init_words on page 22 and following pages. As written, it requires the
> file to be modified more than seven days ago, rather than less. (It was
> fixed on page 29, but that uses a different technique.) So I'm copying
> this to the ORA folks. But is that the problem you're having?
Nope, that sounds like something they must have fixed by the
second edition, as it's always the right comparison in mine. :^)
> It may not be what you need, but a good explanation of using my() is in
> the perlsub manpage. Hope this helps!
Alas, I need quite the opposite. In Linux, it's acting like I had created
$words in a my(), but I didn't. What should be (by default)
a global/public variable has a lifespan limited by the sub in which it's
created. In the Win32 Perl, this works as the book claims; in Linux (and
Perl 5.003), it doesn't work that way. I want it to make the variable
global, as it supposed to be.
Thanks for your follow-up! Any ideas on my better-worded problem?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:34:08 +0200
From: Francesc Guasch <frankie@etsetb.upc.es>
Subject: sending mail with exchange
Message-Id: <356570C0.E87DE3F9@etsetb.upc.es>
Hi, I used once the Mail::Internet and I used the sendmail
open (MAIL,"|/usr/lib/sendmail -t -f$From")
or die "Can't send mail: $!";
$mail->print(\*MAIL);
Now I have to do the same with a NT box that's got
exchange and I'm afraid.
Will it work the same ?
--
^-^.-----, mailto:frankie@etsetb.upc.es
o o _ ) http://www.etsetb.upc.es/~frankie
Y (_, (__(Ssss
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 14:13:43 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m27m3eh5ag.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Jason Larke <jlarke@anthem.aa.ans.net> writes:
> But instead of trying to get him to rewrite his license, I think
> it would be nice if the FSF changed their statement to read
> something like:
>
> "While excellent documentation for Perl is available without
> charge, this documentation is covered by a non-GPL license. GPL'd
> documentation would be desirable."
>
> Which, IMHO, describes the situation better.
No. More accurate would be
"While excellent documentation for Perl is available at no charge,
this documentation may not be redistributed by anybody making a living
from redistribution, nor be changed by anybody but the author to
accomodate changes of the language, errors or other shortcomings. A
documentation under a license permitting this, such as the original
Perl license, would be desirable. Of course, if you are going to
write one from scratch, we are not opposed to you choosing the GPL for
it."
But the FSF has a policy not even to mention non-free software or
documentation in order to not encourage its use. There are cases
where I regard this as silly and detrimental to their real cause (for
example, they don't mention Aladdin Ghostscript on their Web pages at
all, only GNU Ghostscript which gets occasioanlly updated and donated
by Aladdin) and their possible allies.
So I would not expect them to overly praise the quality of Tom's
software in public, too.
--
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 14:17:29 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m267iyh546.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,
> tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) 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.
>
> I am thoroughly and utterly disgusted by every lying word you breath.
> May your lies follow you to Hell. Begone.
Interesting what sort of things you call "courtesy" copies. Anyhow,
they are rather deprecated especially in open disussions like these
because they cause the author to first do a private reply, then have
to redo a reply in the news as well.
--
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 12:37:49 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <pudge-2205980832130001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>
In article <u1hhg2jtpel.fsf@mary-kay-commandos.MIT.EDU>, tb@mit.edu
(Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) wrote:
# Behind almost everything Tom writes on the subject is the question of
# where he is expecting to get money from.
How much of an asshole can you be? Is this the limit, or are you capable
of more?
I realize Tom is a public figure and as such is set up for public scrutiny
and attacks. But that simple fact does not mean that you SHOULD attack
him without basis or reason in this manner.
--
Chris Nandor mailto:pudge@pobox.com http://pudge.net/
MacPerl: Power and Ease (ISBN 1881957322), http://www.ptf.com/macperl/
%PGPKey = ('B76E72AD', [1024, '0824090B CE73CA10 1FF77F13 8180B6B6'])
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:58:22 +0100
From: James Youngman <JYoungman@vggas.com>
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <u1zpgamv1t.fsf@noisy.vggas.com>
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
Tom> I'm sorry Barry, but when Joe Anybody hears the word "free",
Tom> his thought is "gratis", not "libre". Go ask someone on the
Tom> street what a "free lunch", a "free computer", a "free
Tom> hamburger", or some "free software" are. Heck, I'll bet they
Tom> even get the wrong idea about "free rooms". Go ahead. This is
Tom> all very misleading.
You choose only a restricted set of examples. This is itself
misleading.
Well, go out on the street and ask about
Free market?
Free speech?
Free vote?
Free worship?
Free will?
Free man?
Free hand?
Free-dom?
All these phrases use the word "free", but unambiguously not in any
financial sense.
The word "free" has several, not always entirely separable, meanings.
Thus correct context is essential. The context in which a word is
used is pretty much vital to discerning its meaning.
--
Lecturer: "That deals with double negatives. On the other hand, there
is no situation in which a double positive actually denotes a
negative."
Voice from back of hall: "Yeah, right."
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 14:04:40 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <m290nuh5pj.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
> 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.
There has been a time in the United States where people associating
the word "free" not exclusively with "gratis" were not called 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: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:32:54 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <pudge-2205980827180001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>
In article <6k2ur0$jut$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, tchrist@mox.perl.com
(Tom Christiansen) wrote:
# [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
#
# In comp.lang.perl.misc,
# Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
# :Please stop with this stupid "free = with ketchup" example. RMS's
# :definition of "free software" is based on one of the many common
# :definitions of the word, he didn't make up his definition out of whole
# :cloth, like you did.
#
# I'm sorry Barry, but when Joe Anybody hears the word "free", his thought
# is "gratis", not "libre". Go ask someone on the street what a "free
# lunch", a "free computer", a "free hamburger", or some "free software"
# are. Heck, I'll bet they even get the wrong idea about "free rooms".
# Go ahead. This is all very misleading.
Yes, yes, yes. And I think the fact that to most computer users,
"freeware" and "public domain software" are entirely different things
complicates the matter further. When most people think of free software,
they think of freeware, which is not what the FSF means when they say free
software.
All this just simply to say that RMS and his cronies should simply use
hyperlinks and footnotes to explain to Joe User (or worse, Pointy Haired
Bosses) what they mean by "free" instead of potentially and very likely
causing misunderstanding to be passed to said individuals.
I honestly can't see how that is too much to ask.
--
Chris Nandor mailto:pudge@pobox.com http://pudge.net/
MacPerl: Power and Ease (ISBN 1881957322), http://www.ptf.com/macperl/
%PGPKey = ('B76E72AD', [1024, '0824090B CE73CA10 1FF77F13 8180B6B6'])
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 12:43:19 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: Who cares!
Message-Id: <6k3rt7$nlu$9@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
perlguy@technologist.com writes:
:Look, there is now more crap in the newsgroup about the *free licensing*
:issue than there is about Perl!
It was amazing. 90 vs 12 "real perl" from my machine this morning.
I should have set followups away from here. Hindsight isn't called
that for nothing.
--tom
--
Now and then an innocent person is sent to the legislature.
------------------------------
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 2685
**************************************
