[9075] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2693 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri May 22 16:07:26 1998
Date: Fri, 22 May 98 13:00:36 -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: 2693
Today's topics:
Re: Clearly define "free software" <pas@unh.edu>
Re: constants in perl? (Charles DeRykus)
Re: fielded text removal (John Porter)
Re: fielded text removal <dwight95_remove@ix.netcom.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Abigail)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (John Stanley)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Abigail)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <keithmur@mindspring.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tim Smith)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <leandro@lge.com.br>
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 (Eric D. Friedman)
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 <leandro@lge.com.br>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (John Stanley)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Chris Nandor)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 18:19:34 GMT
From: Paul A Sand <pas@unh.edu>
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <6k4fjm$2f8@mozz.unh.edu>
My two cents, not that anyone asked:
One of my favorite quotes is from Thomas Szasz, wrt drug prohibition:
The FDA calls certain substances 'controlled'.
But there are no controlled substances;
there are only controlled persons.
To adapt that to the present discussion:
The FSF calls its software `free'.
But there is no free software;
there are only free persons.
It's essentially misleading to stick an adjective in front of something
when it does not accurately denote a property *of* that thing. To the
FSF's credit, one of their web pages
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) makes pretty clear what
they ``really mean'' by the obfuscatory phrase:
``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy,
distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
it refers to three levels of freedom:
o The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to
your needs.
o The freedom to redistribute copies so you can share with your
neighbor.
o The freedom to improve the program, and release your
improvements to the public, so that the whole community
benefits.
So--fine--they've defined their term via a three-pronged test. And we
could quibble endlessly over why *those* three criteria, why not two,
or four, or a different three, etc. Let's not. I only want to make the
point clear that reasonable people could differ on the details; no
flaming finger wrote this particular three-pronged test on a stone
tablet. Let's call this specific definition ``FSF-free''.
And let's also make the observation that ``FSF-free'' is defined
entirely in terms of the users' freedoms, nothing about that of the
creators'. Or, put more precisely, the creators have no special
freedoms with respect to their FSF-free software that nobody else has.
And that's no accident; see RMS's essay ``Why Software Should Not Have
Owners'' at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html.
Final point: FSF-freedom is freedom in *some* areas but not freedom in
all. To quote RMS with respect to the copyleft variation of FSF-free
software: ``The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says ``no'' to some of
the things that people sometimes want to do.''
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html) That's fine, but it's
hard to avoid concluding that the *real* driving force behind FSF-free
is not plain old freedom, but only ``freedom to do the right thing'';
i.e., to implement the RMSian vision of no-owner software.
To summarize: ``free software'' is at base a slogan. It's misleading,
meant to attract our vague positive feelings for ``freedom'' while
behind the scenes, it's stacking the deck for a specific vision of
intellectual property rights (or their absence, I guess). There should
be no surprise when people get upset.
I'd suggest using ``unownable software'' instead; it's not as pretty,
but it's more accurate and honest in reflecting FSF goals.
[Apologies to those who have made similar points in other posts.]
--
-- Paul A. Sand | Anything worth doing well
-- University of New Hampshire | is worth doing slowly.
-- pas@unh.edu | (Gypsy Rose Lee)
-- http://pubpages.unh.edu/~pas |
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 18:04:58 GMT
From: ced@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Charles DeRykus)
Subject: Re: constants in perl?
Message-Id: <EtDE8A.B6K@news.boeing.com>
In article <6k3uct$emd@news-central.tiac.net>,
Mike Stok <mike@stok.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6k3oil$k54$1@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>M.J.T. Guy <mjtg@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Mike Stok <mike@stok.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In recent versions of perl there's a pragmatic module called constant
>>>
>>>A quck way to tell if it's installed is:
>>>
>>> perl -mbanana -e 1
>>>
>>>which shouldn't complain if it can find the constant module.
>>
>>Eh? I presume you mean
>>
>> perl -mconstant -e 1
>
>Yes. Thanks for spotting that. I usually try and test "obvious" failure
>modes to see which errors, are generated and here I have been caught
>cutting the wrong line & pasting it in a reply...
>
Wait, there has to be a place in Perl for the "banana"
pragma... help for those hungry people who mis-paste :)
--
Charles DeRykus
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 18:08:41 GMT
From: jdporter@min.net (John Porter)
Subject: Re: fielded text removal
Message-Id: <MPG.fcf8ad7e24323259896ea@news.min.net>
Here's my quick hack.
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
# usage: $0 < infile > outfile
while ( <> ) {
if ( /^([A-Z]{2}): / ) {
$in_AB = ( $1 eq 'AB' );
}
print unless $in_AB;
}
Hope this helps,
John Porter
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:06:59 -0700
From: "Dwight" <dwight95_remove@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: fielded text removal
Message-Id: <6k4idj$r4p@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
blap@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6k48cj$rkf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>How do I remove one entire field of info. (AB:)
[snip]
>while ($input_line = <IN>)
>{
>if ($input_line =~ /^AB: /) # Now select just these fields
> { $found_field = 0; }
> elsif ($input_line =~ /^\s*$/) # blank line indicates end of record
> { $found_field = 0; }
> else {$found_field = 1}
>if ($found_field == 1){
> print OUT $input_line;
> }
[snip]
John Porter's solution:
while ( <> ) {
if ( /^([A-Z]{2}): / ) {
$in_AB = ( $1 eq 'AB' );
}
print unless $in_AB;
}
is elegant. If you're wondering why yours didn't work, you're resetting
$found.. to 1 on any non-blank, non-AB line, which means the continuation
lines of AB will reset it. Whereas John's solution only reset's his $in_AB
tag when another tag is encountered. If you really meant that blank lines
also terminate a field, then I think John's "if" would be:
if ( /(^([A-Z]{2}): )|^\s*$)/ ) {
although I'm pretty new at Perl & may not have the syntax perfect.
Dwight.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 18:03:08 GMT
From: abigail@fnx.com (Abigail)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k4eks$o4c$1@client3.news.psi.net>
Tyson Richard DOWD (trd@cs.mu.oz.au) wrote on MDCCXXV September MCMXCIII
in <URL: news:6k2ucv$rj8$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>:
++ pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
++
++ >The FSF or GN or whoever is irresponsible when they say, without direct
++ >qualification, that there is no good free manual for Perl. It is false
++ >without context, which is not provided in this case being discussed.
++
++ You can blame Tom C. for that. The original statement was on
++ the FSF web page, which provides plenty of context for the intended
++ meaning of free.
Oh, please. Blame me instead of Tom, because it was I who lifted it
from the web page.
But here's the entire webpage, except for the navigation and
copyright sections:
\begin{quote}
Documentation
We very urgently need documentation for some parts of the system that
already exist.
* C reference manual. (RMS made a try at one, which you could
start with).
* manual for Ghostscript.
* manual for TCSH.
* good free manual for Perl. (There are proprietary books, but
these are no good, because they are being withheld from our
community by their owners.)
* manual for PIC (the graphics formatting language).
* book on how GCC works and why various machine descriptions are
written as they are.
* manual for programming X-window applications.
* Manuals for various X window managers.
* Reference cards for those manuals that don't have them:
C Compiler, Make, Texinfo, Termcap, and maybe the C Library.
* Many utilities need documentation, including grep and others.
\end{quote}
<URL: http://www.gnu.org/prep/tasks_3.html>
Now, I don't see anything mentioned about free on the page except for
the point about perl. And its context is
"There are proprietary books, but these are no good, because
they are being withheld from our community by their owners."
Which is exactly what made me angry. It doesn't point the the existing
manuals. It points to books. It strongly suggests there are no good
manuals except for the books. And that is a terrible lie.
Abigail
--
perl -MNet::Dict -we '(Net::Dict -> new (server => "dict.org")\n-> define ("foldoc", "perl")) [0] -> print'
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 18:10:24 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k4f2g$mbj$1@news.NERO.NET>
In article <6k3qsg$nlu$5@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>That's not how the Perl distribution works. We have a development
>and release team who does coordinates this work. And we work with the
>authors to make sure their intentions are followed.
Is this the same set of people you were saying sent you email and were
creating distributions without documentation because of a ToDo list
entry they saw on an FSF site? Wouldn't it have been much simpler to
just tell this team to keep putting the documentation in, instead of
starting a flame war? Did you think they wouldn't believe you?
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 18:58:45 GMT
From: abigail@fnx.com (Abigail)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k4ht5$o4c$2@client3.news.psi.net>
Tyson Richard DOWD (trd@cs.mu.oz.au) wrote on MDCCXXV September MCMXCIII
in <URL: news:6k2vc6$s9t$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>:
++
++ Tom C. brought it up. He was the one who posted a quotation out of context
++ from the FSF web page (where they carefully explain what they mean by
++ free).
The URL is <URL:http://www.gnu.org/prep/tasks_3.html>. The page mentions
the word 'free' twice. Once is in 'Free Software Foundation', the other
is in "A good free manual for Perl." Could you please point out where on
the page it is explained what they mean by free? Could you also point
out why 'free' isn't mentioned for the manuals of Ghostscript, tcsh,
PIC, X-window applications and the various X-window managers?
Abigail
--
perl -MLWP::UserAgent -MHTML::TreeBuilder -MHTML::FormatText -wle'print +(HTML::FormatText -> new -> format (HTML::TreeBuilder -> new -> parse (LWP::UserAgent -> new -> request (HTTP::Request -> new ("GET", "http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?isindex=perl")) -> content)) =~ /(.*\))[-\s]+Addition/s) [0]'
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:10:34 -0500
From: "Keith G. Murphy" <keithmur@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3565CDAA.8C44C856@mindspring.com>
Ryan McGuigan wrote:
>
> : :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.
>
> guile? What the hell is guile? Hahaha! I have to agree with Tom on this
> one.
>
I wonder whether you couldn't also emulate guile from within Perl, for
that matter...
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 12:07:52 -0700
From: tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k4ie8$6pf$1@halcyon.com>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>: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.
Yes, I know. But that's what FSF wants in documentation, which is why
your documentation, even though it is excellent documentation, does not
meet their needs. Hence, the item on their task list to produce Perl
documentation that does meet their needs.
Consider, say, Emacs. FSF thinks it is fine for me to take their Emacs
documentation, and make changes, and put it on a CD-ROM, and try to sell
it for $100. They also think it is fine if I try that without making
changes. Same goes with the Emacs program. Their concern is not that
I'm changing their stuff, or selling it, but rather that I allow the
people I sell to to do the same thing, so if you buy one of those $100
CD-ROMs from me, you can copy that documentation from it and give it
away, or put it on your own CD-ROMs and start selling for, say, $50, and
my sales will dry up pretty fast, unless I'm doing something to make it
worth $100 for my CD-ROM, such as providing Emacs tech support to people
who buy from me. (For an example of this, look at Red Hat Linux on
CD-ROM. You can get it for $30-$50 from Red Hat or one of their
official dealers, with support, or you can get it for $2 from CheapBytes
or LSL).
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 15:01:06 -0400
From: tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u1hwwbeceq5.fsf@w20-575-55.MIT.EDU>
les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> But that was back in the days when people still thought the problems
> of a micro-kernel would be easy to solve...
Without a doubt, lots of research on microkernels remains to be done,
and it's certainly not my forte.
There are interesting projects out there, and I look forward to seeing
what they will produce...
My goal has always been to focus more on the interface to programs.
Most microkernel designers do pretty shoddy jobs at the job that they
see as "unix emulation" (which is ok, given that their interest is
elsewhere).
I've been much more interested in how to take some microkernel tools
and develop interfaces for programs (and users too, actually) that are
difficult or impossible to do cleanly in monolithic monitor operating
systems.
I have no interest, whatsoever, in pissing contests about who can make
the most impressive predictions for their software.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 16:20:47 -0300
From: Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra <leandro@lge.com.br>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3565D00F.41A4D0DF@lge.com.br>
Stuart McDow wrote:
>
> Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra <leandro@lge.com.br> writes:
> > Tom Christiansen in gnu.misc.discuss wrote:
> > > If a consultant helps a client with free
> > > software, should he then be obligated to tithe the Great Church
> > > of Cambridge? If someone writes a book and sells it about free software,
> > > must they too tithe the Great Church of Cambridge? Absolutely not.
> >
> > They are not required to, that's the point of copyleft. But they
> > should contribute to the free s/w community, shouldn't they?
>
> Haven't they already contributed to the community by fostering the use
> and acceptance of free software? I think that is more to the point. In
> that matter, ORA has contributed much.
Yes, just as I contribute by using it and making my users know that
their work depends on free s/w. But if you make money on free s/w (I
for myself am just an employee), it would be nice to see you're giving
some $$$ back to foster the development of the tools the books you make
money on are written on -- wow, I think I've been looking at too much
LISP/Scheme!
--
Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra
http://www.lge.com.br./ leandro@lge.com.br
http://www.terravista.pt./Enseada/1989/ BRASIL
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 21:42:01 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2som2um7q.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
barr@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dave Barr) writes:
> In article <m2k97eh7z2.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
> David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
> >"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").
>
> RedHat makes their living by selling their "value added" stuff (like
> MetroX, ApplixWare), not by selling the already-free stuff.
Sorry to disappoint you, but they have to pay hefty royalties for that
stuff, so don't make that impressive revenues by it. My Powertools CD
set, in contrast, also by RedHat, cost about 45DM (about $30),
contains exclusively freely redistributable software, and part of the
profit for it ($1 I believe) goes to the FSF.
If you think that they don't make any revenue from selling a 6 CD-pack
of purely freely redistributable software, you are mistaken, believe
me.
--
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 21:44:10 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2ra1mum45.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,
> 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? :-)
You have been hitting with such an amount of bile, slander, polemics,
exaggeration and spite before that I'm afraid it must quite have
numbed my sense of humor.
--
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 19:34:08 GMT
From: efriedma@us.oracle.com (Eric D. Friedman)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k4jvg$93b$1@inet16.us.oracle.com>
[mailed,posted]
In article <6k05q7$nq9$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
<You can't change Perl to your own liking and go sell it calling it
<Perl, you know.
<
<And you can't distribute incomplete distributions. You are required
<to distribute the whole thing, or nothing. You can't just chop pieces
<out if you feel like it. "Oh, I don't think we'll ship Perl with an
<open system all" doesn't cut it. And you can't omit the docs on open
<either.
Does "perl2exe" adhere to these requirements? I've never used/seen it,
but my understanding is that its function is to wrap a Perl script with
a perl executable for the purposes of distributing the former to
windoze users. Leaving aside the question of this rather dubious
distribution model (a new interpreter w/every script?), does the resulting
bundle really include all of Perl's docs and standard libraries?
Eric
--
Eric D. Friedman
Software Developer Oracle Corporation
Porting Automation User Interfaces (650) 633-6040
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 21:48:39 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2pvh6ulwo.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,
> 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?
I'm glad to hear that you have worked out some deal with somebody to
ensure that you never will never die, grow old, change your mind or be
subject to any other inconvenience. But as we have no legally
persuading information as to that (probably some legal paper signed
with blood and countersigned by Bill Gates), you might understand that
we don't necessarily share your confidence.
--
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 21:52:31 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2n2caulq8.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> In article <m2btsqh6bn.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
> David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
> >
> >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?
>
> Not quite. It specifically allows modules to be loaded without
> requiring them to be GPL'd.
I've thought so before on hearsay. I have been informed of my
mistake, and I have after searching the kernel docs not found any
information that would allow one to think so. The kernel copyright
explicitly allows writing non-GPLed executables to run under Linux.
It does not mention modules.
> Without that, a company would be living on faith that GPL'd device
> drivers would become available for everything they might need in the
> future if they used Linux in a critical function. Whether the
> option is ever actually needed or not it makes the software a much
> safer choice.
Oh, I don't know. Anyhow, it's academic up to now. There is no
exception for kernel modules.
--
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 16:34:27 -0300
From: Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra <leandro@lge.com.br>
To: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3565D343.FA5F395B@lge.com.br>
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> [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.
Not obvious to me. You can't change it if you change the s/w; even if
I renamed it to MyPerl, I still would have to publish a separate manual
called "MyPerl adenda to the Perl Manual by Tom Christiansen", or else
write another one. All right, you do have the right to say it must be
so, it's your prose after all; but we have the right to hope that
someone will write something almost as useful as your manual (yes, I
know your prose makes your manual more useful than we could possibly),
giving us the right to create a MyPerl manual which would be the GPL'd
"FSF's Perl Manual" with the seamless changes asked for by MyPerl.
That's what we are asking for. We call this freedom because we were
using this word in our newsletter, where we explain exactly what we call
free.
Let's try not to be so nasty, let us? If you can prove it a lie, point
by point even if considering our objections, you are entitled to call it
a lie. Use you logic and prove it. If you can't prove it a lie, or
else do not find it worthy, spare us the nasty words. Free s/w won't
make a dent on M$ if we can't even talk among us.
--
Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra
http://www.lge.com.br./ leandro@lge.com.br
http://www.terravista.pt./Enseada/1989/ BRASIL
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 21:57:47 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <m2lnruulhg.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Olof Oberg <millNO@SPAMludd.luth.se> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> > Mercedes will acknowledge the importance Bosch plays for their cars.
> > Still they would object to Bosch calling Mercedes cars Bosch/Mercedes
> > or a variant Bosch car.
> >
> > The whole credit issue could have been managed much much more sanely.
> > Choosing the "brand name" for the attack was pretty stupid.
> Another example. Ford Cosworth. Put the Cosworth engine (and
> probably some addtional tweaks of braking systems etc) into
> a Ford and you get a Ford Cosworth. Put the Linux kernel into
> a mainly GNU system than you have a GNU/Linux system :).
Only that there was no GNU system. There were a lot of excellent and
versatile parts useful for all kinds of cars, and quite a few missing
parts as well, and all had to be assembled into one coherent system.
--
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 18:29:02 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k4g5e$n5m$1@news.NERO.NET>
In article <pudge-2205981045040001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>,
Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <p5vhqy2x8g.fsf@baynetworks.com>, psmith@baynetworks.com wrote:
># First, this gives permission only for distribution "via electronic means
># or printed copy", and it's not at all clear to me that sticking it on a
># CD falls under either of those categories. Why not just say "by any
># means"?
>
>I can't answer the question, but I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind
>that a CD is electronic means. How could it not be?
Because there are no electronics directly involved in distributing CD's?
Yes, it takes electronics to create the CD, but it also takes
electronics to create a book. It takes electronics to read a CD, but by
the time you read it it is already distributed. And you can scan a book
using electronics, too.
There are GPS units on most of the trucks that the boxes of CD's are
shipped around the country, but that is ancillary to the distribution
process. And, of course, the same trucks carry books.
So, if a CD is "electronic means", a book would have to fall into that
category.
And yes, I would agree that instict says that CD-ROM is "electronic
means", but the fact that there is no electronics in the distribution
process is the answer to your question "how could it not be?"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 19:12:01 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <pudge-2205981506250001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>
In article <6k4g5e$n5m$1@news.NERO.NET>, stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU
(John Stanley) wrote:
# In article <pudge-2205981045040001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>,
# Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com> wrote:
# >In article <p5vhqy2x8g.fsf@baynetworks.com>, psmith@baynetworks.com wrote:
# ># First, this gives permission only for distribution "via electronic means
# ># or printed copy", and it's not at all clear to me that sticking it on a
# ># CD falls under either of those categories. Why not just say "by any
# ># means"?
# >
# >I can't answer the question, but I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind
# >that a CD is electronic means. How could it not be?
#
# Because there are no electronics directly involved in distributing CD's?
#
# Yes, it takes electronics to create the CD, but it also takes
# electronics to create a book. It takes electronics to read a CD, but by
# the time you read it it is already distributed. And you can scan a book
# using electronics, too.
Books do NOT require electronics. AFAIK, CDs do, not just for creating,
but for reading.
I can create a book without electronics. Thank goodness I don't have to.
--
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 21:20:35 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <m2vhqyun7g.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,
> 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.
It's irrelevant. For software they distribute, they adhere to the
letter of the license. They don't want somebody coming at them and
sueing them. In particular when the person in question is as mad at
them as to take any valid excuse (and a breach of the wording of the
license is a valid excuse) to get at them.
Your license prohibits copying for more than media costs. The FSF,
while being in total a charity, copies its software for more than
media costs. If it includes your tutorials, you might sue them for
it. Considering how fond you seem of them, I would not consider this
an implausible danger. As the FSF's funds are such that a single
lawsuit for copyright infringement could ruin them, you cannot really
blame for being paranoid.
Also, your license does not permit anybody to do necessary changes to
the documentation if you're not around to do them. You may have given
few persons special permission, but that might turn out insufficient
for developer's purposes.
--
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 21:24:34 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <m2u36iun0t.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme) writes:
> On 22 May 1998 11:37:38 +0200, David Kastrup
> <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>
> >fl_aggie@thepentagon.com (I R A Aggie) writes:
> >
> >> In article <6k1cl6$d6g$1@schenectady.netmonger.net>,
> >> chris+usenet@netmonger.net wrote:
> >>
> >> + The
> >> + whole POINT of the GPL is to let people write free software and know
> >> + that it can never be taken and used in a non-free product.
> >>
> >> Then its not really _free_ software, is it?
> >
> >An American citizen may not be taken as a slave, nor sell himself as
> >one. It seems that he is not really free, then.
>
> An American citizen can, however, choose to work for a profit or a
> non-profit group.
Correct. But he does not become their property. The GPL effectively
prohibits any derived work of some GPLed work to become the private
property of anybody in a certain way considered bad (namely, making
money not merely by distributing it, but also prohibiting any
competition in distribution).
--
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 2693
**************************************
