[9082] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2700 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Sat May 23 02:08:39 1998
Date: Fri, 22 May 98 23:00:24 -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: 2700
Today's topics:
Re: Clearly define "free software" (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Marcus G. Daniels)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <rowland@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Paul D. Smith)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: More double standards out of the FSF <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: More double standards out of the FSF <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: Please Help <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Re-direct question <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 23:44:26 -0500
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <6k5k7a$83j$1@Venus.mcs.net>
In article <6k3dap$6k3$1@justus.ecc.lu>,
Stefaan A Eeckels <Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu> wrote:
>The fact that Motif is not available on all machines, or is
>itself a commercial toolkit has *no* impact on the
>GPL'd nature of my program. If that were the case, the only
>systems on which GPL'd code could be run would be the
>non-commercial OS such as *BSD and Linux.
No, there is a special exception for standard system software
and motif is allowed because it is standard on some systems
(most, when the exception was made). You couldn't do that
with some other commercial library. Well, you could if you
are the sole author, but if you distribute under the GPL
everyone else would be prohibited from making any derivative
works, and what is the point of source availability if derived
works are prohibited?
>What you do to make my program run on your machine has got
>*nothing* to do with the GPL, because I have no rights to
>anything on your machine bar my lousy program.
>
>The GPL says:
>"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification
> are not covered by this license; they are outside its scope.
> The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the
> output from the Program is covered only if it contents constitute
> a work based on the Program (independent of having been made
> by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what
> de Program does."
>
>Your suggesting that linking the program in order to make it
>run infringes the GPL is thus plain wrong.
Yes. You have to distribute all the components required except
those supplied with standard operating systems under the same
GPL terms or you can't distribute any of it (unless you are the
copyright owner and not under its restrictions). Wrong or not,
that's what it says.
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 21:34:58 -0700
From: marcusd@cathcart.sysc.pdx.edu (Marcus G. Daniels)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <rfi3ee1a9l9.fsf@cathcart.sysc.pdx.edu>
>>>>> "TC" == Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
TC> But you aren't going to allowed to lie about work created by
TC> others, to steal things and claim them as your own and deny their
TC> authors due copyright recognition. Moreover, there's a
TC> significant social contract that you break in doing so. If that's
TC> the FSF's idea of freedom, then let us part company now, this very
TC> eve.
In the GPL, we read:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 01:07:27 -0400
From: Shaun Rowland <rowland@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3566598F.52F29054@cis.ohio-state.edu>
robert havoc pennington wrote:
>
> Shaun Rowland <rowland@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> >
> > else's work, be it exactly correct or completely wrong. There is
> > nothing about this idea that leads to the definition of "proprietary".
> > The manual for perl is NOT being withheld from *our* community by their
> > owners. I am more than happy with the situation with perl as I am sure
> > many are.
>
> I am happy with the Perl docs too. I also agree that the FSF could
> phrase things a little more gently, perhaps; tact is not their strong
> point. But other than that I don't think it warrants such a giant
> gnu.misc.discuss flamewar.
This discussion has gone off on a few slight tangents possibly, but it
seems that there might be a few such issues that are annoying people. I
think that we all at least share somewhat of a similar goal. Maybe ;-)
> > comfortable with the above statement. Don't forget that there are
> > people that don't know what you mean by "free" reading what you write.
>
> Very few were reading it until it was posted to comp.lang.perl.misc,
> ironically enough. At least on the GNU web site you must run the
> propaganda gauntlet where "free" and "proprietary" are defined in
> order to find the task list.
Yes, this is true... and I understand what the FSF means when it says
free. I am a "follower" to some extent, and whatever I contribute will
no doubt be released under the GPL, just because that is what I feel is
fundamentally correct (in my own personal view at this time). Wow, how
sly can I be by saying that ;-) I do believe in the GPL project though.
In all reality, I love the FSF and the GPL. I just think that Tom's
views are warranted. Maybe the discussion should be how both ideas
could coexist instead of a large flame war over who is right and who is
wrong... because the truth is both sides are right.
> > I believe that the above statement is very unfair as worded, and Tom has
> > the right to be upset.
> >
>
> I think he has the right to be mildly annoyed and maybe write a snippy
> email to RMS asking for a rewording. I also think the "unspeakable
> evil" flames were pretty out of hand.
Maybe, but passions run high. Perl is a big deal to a lot of people.
Fundamentals mean a lot to great people as well. There are people
venting here that are major contributors and have a lot of say... a lot
more than I do.
> > This is not all that minor of an issue, at least to someone like
> > myself. These issues mean something to me. When a statement that
> > basically says that the perl community is not *free* in some sense of
> > the word is made to such a general audience, then I am not comfortable.
> > I know that such a statement is not true under most contexts. I can see
> > the FSF's point, and I would never want to imply that I don't like the
> > ideals that the FSF embraces, but I wouldn't say that I don't see Tom's
> > point and wouldn't be upset if I were in his position. I like the GNU
> > project. Maybe I have some inclination to believe totally in the FSF's
> > idea of "free" due to my rather idealistic view of things, but I sure as
> > hell see Tom's point, and Matt's.
> >
>
> It would help if everyone here was as good at seeing all the points. ;-)
And at this time I would like to say that as a new person at the game I
do see the concerns of both sides. On the surface this seems to be a
slight issue of only a flame war... but here we have a lot of very
intelligent people with differing opinions. I believe that we all want
a lot of the same things, but must be careful in how we evangelize our
beliefs.
> > If the FSF wants to make their own documentation for perl then they
> > should do so and not say things that imply that the documentation for
> > perl is NOT free, at least in such a context that confuses a lot of
> > people.
>
> How are they going to get anyone to write the docs they want unless
> they write on their web site why they want new docs?
Yes, but as stated above... different wording would have eased this
whole "situation". I would like to think that it was not the intent of
the FSF to say that the perl docs now are proprietary, but when you use
that word it is hard to think otherwise (given the definition of
proprietary in my mind stands very far from the current state of the
perl docs let alone the FSF...).
> > I can tell you this, I will buy the books and read Tom's perl
> > documentation anyway even though I like the FSF.
>
> Me too. Even though I found Tom's posts kind of annoying.
They might seem carried away in some sense, but it is important to make
distinctions when discussing something that is so important to so many
people, myself included. This is not a game of words here (sadly), I
intend on someday contributing all I can to this realm of free
software. There are a lot of ideas that I just feel are fundamentally
correct. It is very hard to chose sides or pick words from implied
meaning without looking at both sides of the argument. Maybe I am
taking this too far ;-) I do see both sides of the argument and also
see room for a change of wording on both parts (as is with most
arguments).
> > Go and make FSF documentation under the GPL, just don't go around
> > saying that the current documentation is not *free* and that it is
> > withheld from *our* community, because in at least some sense, this is
> > an absolute lie.
>
> Well, they have to say it somehow to explain the task list item. I
> agree it could be worded more tactfully.
As do I. Basically that is what I think is wrong, the wording... not
the meaning directly. The FSF is free to make documentation, just don't
propagate things that lead the masses (be they the ones who know what
you mean, or those that are clue less) into believing that the current
state of affairs is somehow completely wrong.
> That's why I think there must be deeper personal issues most of us are
> unaware of. From the outside, it looks like a lot of childish
> bickering over nothing.
>
> Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
Maybe. Personally I have not changed my views of the FSF of the current
state of affairs with Perl (as I would hope many others would, although
the discussion does warrant thought on the issue). I still believe in
both and support both sides to some extent or another. This is a
difficult issue that cannot be taken as hard core one way or the other,
but more in a way the benefits us all... besides there is nothing that
says FSF documentation is a *bad* idea (and I would like it just to add
to the worth of the FSF movement), but AT LEAST I would like the FSF not
to make a general statement about the current state of affairs that
leads to so much confusion.
Is that so wrong?
--
---------------------------------------------
Shaun Rowland rowland@cis.ohio-state.edu
IICF System Administrator DL798
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~rowland
http://linux.med.ohio-state.edu/rowland
---------------------------------------------
Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 05:20:22 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <q0t91.9$5K2.3384@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <6k5eat$7d3$1@Venus.mcs.net>, Leslie Mikesell <les@MCS.COM> wrote:
>Well yes, I suppose I do have a bias towards letting people make their
>own decisions about whether they agree to commercial copyright terms
>or not. It would be fun to see if Microsoft could get away with
>putting a restriction on their products that said they couldn't be
>linked with any competitor's. I don't think it would fly.
Not directly, but the following is certainly a possibility.
A library vendor could have a license that says that you must pay them a
royalty that's a certain percentage of the selling price, when you
distribute a product linked with the library. Suppose it's 2%. If your
profit margin before the royalties is 20%, it would be economically
infeasible for you to link with 10 or more such libraries.
>>>can use it, someone can hire you to write such code for their own
>>>use, but you can't give them a copy.
>>
>>If someone hires you to write it, it's a "work for hire", and it's owned by
>>the employer, so giving it to him is not making a copy. He probably can't
>>let you take a copy with you when you're done, though!
>
>Which all seems pretty counterproductive and unlikely to result in
>good interoperable components.
The goal of the FSF is more free software, not "good interoperable
components".
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 05:30:33 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <Z9t91.10$5K2.3384@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <rfi3ee1a9l9.fsf@cathcart.sysc.pdx.edu>,
Marcus G. Daniels <marcusd@cathcart.sysc.pdx.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> "TC" == Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
>
>TC> But you aren't going to allowed to lie about work created by
>TC> others, to steal things and claim them as your own and deny their
>TC> authors due copyright recognition. Moreover, there's a
>TC> significant social contract that you break in doing so. If that's
>TC> the FSF's idea of freedom, then let us part company now, this very
>TC> eve.
>
>In the GPL, we read:
>
> 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
>of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
>distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
>above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
>
> a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
> stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
Where does that say that the original author must be acknowledged? It says
you must indicate that you changed the files, but it doesn't say you have
to indicate who wrote the previous version.
However, Tom made mention of "due copyright recognition". AFAIK, copyright
laws don't include "recognition" of the author. Copyright laws give the
author the right to control reproduction and performance of a work, but
do not provide an inherent right to recognition. The copyright owner can
demand such recognition as part of the conditions for allowing reproduction
or performance, but it's not a built-in right.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1998 15:27:16 +1000
From: trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k5mnk$iud$1@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au>
dterrell@obscurity.net (Dave Terrell) writes:
>Tyson Richard DOWD <trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au> says:
>>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.
>If you're making modifications that are simple bugfixes, then
>documentation changes shouldn't be necessary, beyond a simple
>README/addendum. If you're making serious modifications/additions, than
>such things should be distributed as modules or submitted to the perl
>project to be included in the main distribution, with the corresponding
>documentation changes being added by the author. What's wrong with that?
What if they say no?
Then it would be nice to have a free manual I can modify.
Imagine if the egcs developers were forced to write a completely new
set of documentation for egcs, instead of being able to re-use the
existing gcc documentation. Or they were told -- sorry, can't modify
the man pages, just add an "addendum" and hope that everybody reads
it.
>Until such time as the authors of perl become incapacitated or unresponsive,
>this solutions works. When they do, arrangements can be made to move
>the project to a new maintainer. I would trust a project that has been
>maintained that way much more than I would any of 3 dozen different slightly
>different versions of "perl" I could randomly download on the net.
You assume that there will be new maintainers available forever.
You assume that the old maintainers will voluntarily give over their
copyrights.
You assume that every change anyone makes is going to be accepted into
the standard version.
This is beginning to sound like "we need to stop people modifying the
documentation, or they might create a different version of perl".
I think it's a good idea for there to be a single version of perl, but
I don't think this should be done at the expense of the usefulness of
the software. So long as people name their modified versions
differently, the consequences are up to them.
>You'll note that Linux often has the same problem, where certain packages
>are written with either explicit or implicit dependencies on a certain
>distribution, and that there is a project now underway to standardize
>these elements to prevent such problems.
I know all about it.
The diversity of different setups has lead to a number of very good
solutions to system integration problems. It is now a good time to
gather all those modified setups into a single setup, so as
to get all the improvements together. If no modification were allowed,
only some of those improvements would have been made (e.g. you'll get
the good parts of RedHat, but not the good parts of Debian).
Read Homesteading the Noosphere
http://sagan.earthspace.net/~esr/writings/homesteading/
for more information on how licenses allowing modification and different
versions don't necessarily lead to splitting, because of strong customs
and practices.
------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1998 15:49:15 +1000
From: trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k5o0r$j07$1@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au>
Evan Kirshenbaum <evan@garrett.hpl.hp.com> writes:
>trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD) writes:
>> 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.
>I know I really shouldn't get involved in this one, but I'm having
>trouble coming up with another X for which "free X" can reasonably be
>construed as "an X that anyone is free to examine, modify and make
>available to others provided that if they do so they must provide a a
>full description of the modified X and transfer this right"?
How about being a little easier on the defintion.
"An X that has no restrictions upon use".
Now, with software (and, to a lesser extent, the written word),
it is *useful* to be able to
- modify
- copy
- examine
Now, here's the trick with licenses like the GPL -- they don't
want extra restrictions added (because that might restrict usefulness
to others). So they put some restrictions on use -- that you cannot
restrict usage any further. All the parts of the GPL about linking,
derived works, including source code, etc are just how this is
implemented (they tried not to have any loopholes).
Now some people will say GPL isn't fully useful, because they cannot
use it to restrict other people's usage. Other people's view on
this is that it is an acceptable sacrifice.
------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1998 00:09:57 -0400
From: psmith@baynetworks.com (Paul D. Smith)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <p5n2c94oh6.fsf@baynetworks.com>
%% Bill Anderson <recon@cavalry.com> writes:
ba> """
ba> Furthermore, you may include this document in any distribution of the
ba> full Perl source or binaries, in its verbatim documentation, or on a
ba> complete dump of the CPAN archive, providing that the three stipulations
ba> given above continue to
ba> be met.
ba> """
ba> As I understand the liscense, they can distribute it. they can not
ba> however, charge explicitly for perlfaq itsself.
Please elucidate.
This says, essentially, that in addition to the stipulations of the
first paragraph, you can also do exactly the same thing with a perl core
distribution and/or a dump of CPAN... in other words, this simply gives
you exactly the same rights and responsibilities the first paragraph
does, for a couple of specific instances.
As far as I can tell, the entire paragraph is redundant, although as
I've pointed out on another thread one can imagine that this wasn't
Tom's intent when writing it.
I don't see where your interpretation is stated.
ba> Redhat, et al. do not charge for it. They charge for the service of
ba> placing the various programs, etc. on the CD. Therefore, RedHat et al.
ba> are perfectly fine regarding the perlfaq.
[[ Aside: I think RedHat charges for more than just that; they use the
fees they collect to fund development of RPM and other projects. ]]
So, suppose someone wanted to make a collection of online documentation
for Perl. They pulled _all_ the perl docs, including perlfaq, plus they
went through the USENET archives and included a large selection of
useful posts. It seems to me that using your justification they could
easily claim they charged for the service of creating the CD and
performing that collection, but not for any specific item on the CD, and
thus use perlfaq.
But, based on my reading of his posts, I suspect Tom wouldn't be too
happy about that situation.
The fact is that Tom's actual intent here is much more complex than is
either codified in his license, or allowed by attempting to stretch it.
The license is flawed, and it's great that Tom is going to rework it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psmith@baynetworks.com> Network Management Development
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions--Bay Networks takes no responsibility for them.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 05:10:46 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <qTs91.8$5K2.3384@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <m2zpgave9f.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>Please answer this question: what will happen to the Perl
>documentation if you happened to die? People will then be in one heck
>of an ugly fix.
Maybe his heirs, who will inherit the copyright, will be willing to allow
the public to modify it, rather than have it fall into disrepair.
I can think of all sorts of morbid jokes about the FSF community
contracting a hit on Tom, but I'll suppress the impulse.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 05:44:00 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: More double standards out of the FSF
Message-Id: <Amt91.11$5K2.3384@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <m2g1i2ukgg.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>consider it a fault of them not to mention that the people they cannot
>use the docs from are especially altruistic.
RMS has the following problem: he sees the world as black and white. There
are the people who do things that conform to his vision of The Right Way,
and Everyone Else. He steadfastly refuses to promote Everyone Else.
Occasionally he'll be annoyed by someone in the Everyone Else group that
he'll single them out for derision (e.g. the LPF's boycott of Apple when
they were suing Microsoft over UI copyrights), or someone who is really
close to The Right Way that he'll post suggestions about how they can make
the small step over the line (e.g. his comments on the Netscape Public
License), but for the most part he just tries to avoid saying anything,
good or bad, about them, and encourages others to do the same. So he'll
ask that commercial competitors to FSF documentation not be promoted, or
even mentioned, in the gnu.* newsgroups (note: he doesn't demand, although
his requests may come in the form of a complaint, and often people respond
with a "who died and made you God" type of comment).
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 05:56:29 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: More double standards out of the FSF
Message-Id: <hyt91.12$5K2.3384@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <m3pvh6n5dl.fsf@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
>In comp.lang.perl.misc, Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>
>> Anyway, if the name is sacrosanct (and I believe even RMS agrees with
>> this, as I think he pushed for the non-GNU Emacs's to have distinct
>> names like Xemacs), I would just call my version PerlFixed or something
>> like that if I fixed a bug in Perl.
>
>I would presume that if you fixed a bug in Perl, you would submit the
>patch back the maintainers rather than simply forking your own version.
>As a matter of simple politeness.
I might.
But suppose I felt that Perl would be a better language if the meanings of
s/// and y/// were interchanged. I might submit the changes back to the
maintainers, but I wouldn't be surprised if they refused to incorporate
them.
So I would fork my own version, perhaps calling it Lrep, and see if I can
gather a following for my new language. Since Perl is distributed with a
free license, this is my right.
However, if I wanted documentation for this, I couldn't take Tom's
excellent manual and perform a global swap of "s/" and "y/" and a global
y/perl/lrep/ig. I would have to ask Tom for permission; if he isn't
interested in helping out a Perl competitor, he might refuse, and I would
have to write Lrep documentation from scratch (or write an addendum that
tells people to that everywhere Tom says s/// he means y///, and vice
versa).
This is clearly a strawman, but I think it illustrates the difference in
freedoms that the two licenses provide very clearly.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 05:48:38 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: Ann <anw3635@omega.uta.edu>
Subject: Re: Please Help
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980522224051.29458C-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Fri, 22 May 1998, Ann wrote:
> Subject: Please Help
Please check out this helpful information on choosing good subject
lines. It will be a big help to you in making it more likely that your
requests will be answered.
http://www.perl.com/CPAN/authors/Dean_Roehrich/subjects.post
> #!/usr/bin/suidperl
You should never directly invoke suidperl. If your script is set-id, it
should be invoked automatically.
> $ENV{'PATH'} = '/bin:/home/$user';
Does your system have a directory with a dollar sign in its name? Probably
you should put into your PATH only the needed path elements.
> exec "/bin/echo", $fw > "/home/$user/.forward";
Anything that echo can do, Perl can do. (Better :-) Besides, that's not
valid syntax for redirecting output - you're passing echo two parameters,
and the second one is the result of a numeric comparison. :-) Just open
the file and store something into it, if that's what you want. (Of course,
it's gotta be writable...!)
When you're having trouble with a CGI program in Perl, you should first
look at the please-don't-be-offended-by-the-name Idiot's Guide to solving
such problems. It's available on CPAN.
http://www.perl.com/CPAN/
http://www.perl.org/CPAN/
http://www.perl.org/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html
http://www.perl.org/CPAN/doc/manual/html/pod/
Hope this helps!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 05:54:01 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: Larry Rosler <lr@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Re-direct question
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980522225146.29458E-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Fri, 22 May 1998, Larry Rosler wrote:
> Tom Phoenix caught my omission of a guard over the front end of this
> regex, but apparently missed the $ at the back end, which would rule out
> the students from Bedrock.
Righto.
> if ($host =~ /(?:^|\.)\Q$res_dom\E$/) { # If they are coming from
> Varian
How about changing the comment to "if they are coming from Varian and not
via an offsite proxy server"? :-) If they're really determined, they
could even do things on-site so that you wouldn't know they were
connecting from Varian. Oh, well!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
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 2700
**************************************
