[9089] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2707 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Sun May 24 01:07:33 1998
Date: Sat, 23 May 98 22:00:42 -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 Sat, 23 May 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 2707
Today's topics:
"print" and web-clients (Guido Mensching)
Re: Clearly define "free software" (le Fanttme)
Re: Clearly define "free software" (le Fanttme)
Re: Clearly define "free software" (le Fanttme)
Re: Clearly define "free software" <hp@pobox.com>
Re: Error with my module using DB_File (Jason Gloudon)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Abigail)
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 (Chris Nandor)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Leslie Mikesell)
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 (John Stanley)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (John Stanley)
Re: Perl 5.005_xxx <davidc@selectst.com>
Perl Newbie (no nothing) needs help (LONG) <dspencer@accessone.com>
Re: Perl Newbie (no nothing) needs help (LONG) (Bob Trieger)
Perl/mSQL/Win32 (Earthling)
Re: Perl/Wall lingo question <shimpei+usenet+.mil+.gov@BOFH.patnet.caltech.edu>
Problems with "print" (Guido Mensching)
Re: Problems with "print" <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit (Tim Smith)
Upload File via Web <a.amemiya@asahi-jc.com>
Re: Upload File via Web <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 00:44:25 GMT
From: mensch@spinfo.uni-koeln.de (Guido Mensching)
Subject: "print" and web-clients
Message-Id: <6k7qh9$i9o@news.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE>
Using the 'print'-command, some information is printed to the
web-client, while other is not. E.g.
print $string;
works but the following does not:
if (pos $string > 1) {print "No result"};
If I run the program locally under UNIX, both of them work.
Can anybody help me?
(You'll have noticed that I'm a beginner, so pardon me if the question
is too simple. I didn't find anything in the FAQs I read).
Thanks in advance.
--
==========================================================================
Guido Mensching --- Linguistic Data Processing --- University of Cologne
mensch@spinfo.uni-koeln.de --- Tel. 49-221-4704430 --- FAX: 49-221-4705193
See http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de for information about our Department.
==========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 03:41:41 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <28823EBFA9D1BB50.7B8E79C5B0A7CAA6.8E7FD3918F9F0873@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On Fri, 22 May 1998 06:18:44 GMT, robert havoc pennington
<hp@pobox.com> wrote:
>cls@seawood.org (Christopher Seawood) writes:
>> Again, you are confusing _intent_ with _results_.
>
>I'm not confusing anything - see what I said next:
>
>> : Now, they may not say what they mean explicitly enough for your
>> : liking, but I think it's clear that they don't *mean* to be
>> : contradictory. I find www.opensource.org a better source of
>> : definitions, really, and the FSF does agree with that definition too.
>>
>> Again, the results of their actions fall a bit short of their good intentions.
>I agree the results may not be perfect. My problem with your position
>is that I am not sure anyone else has done any better. All the other
>major licenses have problems of ambiguity and practice as well.
I think the NPL/MPL does so. It does have its flaws by potentially
giving too much to the owner of the NPL/MPL package, but I think that
initial owners of packages may be due some special rights.
It will take time to see how well it works, but by permitting the
original source code to be protected similarly to the GNU GPL (in that
modifications to the original source are to remain under the original
license) yet allows clean cooperation with non-open software (in that
additions can be made through alternate licenses if they are in
separate files; even better, the modifications in the original source
to support those additions are under the original license, exposing
the API of the modifications themselves).
-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: Sun, 24 May 1998 03:51:07 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <EDC165308E78294B.B37CBF34BC775A88.4494DD06315DF258@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 23 May 1998 09:08:21 GMT, Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu (Stefaan A
Eeckels) wrote:
>In article <6k5k7a$83j$1@venus.mcs.net>,
> les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>> In article <6k3dap$6k3$1@justus.ecc.lu>,
>> Stefaan A Eeckels <Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>The linchpin of this discussion is that I, as the author of a
>piece of software, can apply *any* type of license I want. When
>I release software that links with a $20,000 proprietary library
>under the GPL, that's OK, because *it is my program*. You, on
>the other hand, cannot take *my* GPL'd program, modify it to
>run with said library, and distribute it. You can however,
>use it for your own purposes. The GPL fullfills its intended
>purpose - to stop *you* from making *my* program less free[1].
If you have written a useful program, how does my adding the
capability to make your program work with Oracle make it less free?
Granted, my modifications may have a "limited" audience compared to
your original program. This doesn't make your program less free.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fantome*@*vnet*.*net * http://fantome.vnet.net/
---------------* aziegler*@*vcela*.*com * -------------------------
Remove the stars to email me * Ni bhionn an rath ach
my words my opinions my ideas * mar a mbionn an smacht
-- I Argue Ideas, Not Beliefs: Give Up Your Dogma --
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 03:56:31 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <E4C813D06F3694DA.29DFDB455831A2D5.8709D32254F36E8C@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On Fri, 22 May 1998 04:25:04 GMT, Barry Margolin
<barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>In article <jE191.242$C06.1181736@news.san.rr.com>,
>Christopher Seawood <cls@seawood.org> wrote:
>>From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html,
>>
>>"Free software is software that comes with permission for anyone to use,
>>copy, and distribute, either verbatim or with modifications, either
>>gratis or for a fee. "
>>
>>Now that pretty much fits my definition of free software. However, GPL
>>software does not fall under this heading, IMO. Why not? Because GPL
>>software restricts what you can _use_ the software with. I am not free
>>to _use_ (compile & link, in this case) GPL software with propreitary
>>libraries. So according to the above definition, GPL software is not
>>"free software as defined by the FSF".
>
>You can link with proprietary libraries, but you can't redistribute the
>result. That's because the recipient would be restricted in what *he*
>could do with it. Giving you the rights you want means depriving someone
>else of their rights. RMS chose to preserve the users' rights over those
>of the people who want to make a proprietary derived works.
Would the recipient be restricted? Those who need the modified package
would probably have the proprietary library, anyway. What RMS has done
is made it so that useful programs with useful enhancements based
against proprietary libraries (again, such as Oracle) can't be
produced.
-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: Sun, 24 May 1998 04:05:34 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <wsnwwbcwbxt.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme) writes:
> I wrote:
> >I agree the results may not be perfect. My problem with your position
> >is that I am not sure anyone else has done any better. All the other
> >major licenses have problems of ambiguity and practice as well.
>
> I think the NPL/MPL does so. It does have its flaws by potentially
> giving too much to the owner of the NPL/MPL package, but I think that
> initial owners of packages may be due some special rights.
>
> It will take time to see how well it works, but by permitting the
> original source code to be protected similarly to the GNU GPL (in that
> modifications to the original source are to remain under the original
> license) yet allows clean cooperation with non-open software (in that
> additions can be made through alternate licenses if they are in
> separate files; even better, the modifications in the original source
> to support those additions are under the original license, exposing
> the API of the modifications themselves).
>
Well, time will tell. I have a couple worries about the NPL/MPL:
1) It is not GPL compatible and not likely to become as much of a
standard
2) Its copyleft has no teeth, because it's too easy to put things in
a separate file
I would prefer a license that was NPL/MPL-like only with respect to
other free licenses, and GPL-like with respect to proprietary
licenses. But such a license might be hard to write in legally
defensible terms. Failing that, I would prefer the GPL just because my
guess is that a secure copyleft is more important than slightly easier
proprietary development for the future of free software.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 02:31:19 GMT
From: jgloudon@hyssop.bbn.com.bbn.com (Jason Gloudon)
Subject: Re: Error with my module using DB_File
Message-Id: <XDL91.17$5K2.306962@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
Y Chen <yinso@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
> while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
> Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info.
base64 encoding is not willingly parsed in this group. Please try plain text
limited to the lines surrounding the offending line.
--
Jason
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 01:59:50 GMT
From: abigail@fnx.com (Abigail)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k7uum$gm0$5@client3.news.psi.net>
Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx02.dac.neu.edu) wrote on MDCCXXVI
September MCMXCIII in <URL: news:6k7d5s$6ob@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>:
++ Abigail (abigail@fnx.com) wrote in article <6k4tnh$tl$1@client3.news.psi.net>
++ ]perl -wleprint -eqq-@{[ -eqw\\- -eJust -eanother -ePerl -eHacker -e\\-]}-
++
++
++ ~% perl -wleprint -eqq-@{[ -eqw\\- -eJust -eanother -ePerl -eHacker -e\\-]}-
++ Missing ].
++ ~%
++
++ Just another bit of buggy code ? :-)
Buggy shell maybe? In /bin/sh and compatible shells:
$ perl -wleprint -eqq-@{[ -eqw\\- -eJust -eanother -ePerl -eHacker -e\\-]}-
Just another Perl Hacker
$
Abigail
--
perl -e '$a = q 94a75737420616e6f74686572205065726c204861636b65720a9 and
${qq$\x5F$} = q 97265646f9 and s g..g;
qq e\x63\x68\x72\x20\x30\x78$&eggee;
{eval if $a =~ s e..eqq qprint chr 0x$& and \x71\x20\x71\x71qeexcess}'
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 02:05:56 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <7EFC887EE860DCB9.6536076BE65DAF46.6B78978C0EF5C1B5@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 24 May 1998 02:19:52 +1000, Nathan Hand <nathanh@chirp.com.au>
wrote:
>mrw@uiuc.edu (Matthew R. Williams) writes:
>
>> chris+usenet@netmonger.net writes:
>>
>> > And you don't acknowledge the point of view that it is an insult to
>> > call it "The Linux Operating System" even though it consists almost
>> > entirely of GNU code.
>>
>> Ex-squeeze me?
>>
>> The kernel doesn't look like it's heavily influenced by GNU anything.
>> Linus wrote that from scratch.
>
>The kernel does not make the operating system. By itself the
>kernel is a fairly pretty but entirely useless piece of code
>that can't be used for anything by anybody.
According to the OS class that I took when I was in school, the
operating system was that which provided memory management, disk
interfaces, and methods of user interface. Said jack about having a
compiler.
-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: Sun, 24 May 1998 02:07:02 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6093DAACC7C62F2F.99AA97EDE04E2DCE.E56E0D83DDB7C480@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 23 May 1998 19:30:48 -0400, tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
wrote:
>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:
>
>> >Worse still, if I am redhat, I cannot distribute perlfaq at all.
>>
>> What is stopping you from distributing perlfaq if you are redhat?
>
>Redhat is making a distribution for profit as part of a commercial
>enterprise. This is prohibited by the perlfaq license.
Bullshit, and you know it.
I've deconstructed this for you. Please read it before you continue to
make this statement from ignorance.
-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: Sun, 24 May 1998 02:22:21 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <pudge-2305982216460001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>
In article
<6093DAACC7C62F2F.99AA97EDE04E2DCE.E56E0D83DDB7C480@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme) wrote:
# On 23 May 1998 19:30:48 -0400, tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
# wrote:
#
# >? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:
# >
# >> >Worse still, if I am redhat, I cannot distribute perlfaq at all.
# >>
# >> What is stopping you from distributing perlfaq if you are redhat?
# >
# >Redhat is making a distribution for profit as part of a commercial
# >enterprise. This is prohibited by the perlfaq license.
#
# Bullshit, and you know it.
#
# I've deconstructed this for you. Please read it before you continue to
# make this statement from ignorance.
He is either stupid or lying. Let him go. He is refusing to acknowledge
that the license at the very least implicitly allows this, which it does,
and he is refusing to acknowledge that Tom's history of explicitly
allowing it in word and implicitly in lack of deed also allows it. He is
dishonest or dumb. Let him go.
--
Chris Nandor mailto:pudge@pobox.com http://pudge.net/
%PGPKey = ('B76E72AD', [1024, '0824090B CE73CA10 1FF77F13 8180B6B6'])
------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1998 21:34:27 -0500
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k80vj$bdk$1@Mars.mcs.net>
In article <6093DAACC7C62F2F.99AA97EDE04E2DCE.E56E0D83DDB7C480@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
le Fanttme <fantome/@/usa/./net> wrote:
>On 23 May 1998 19:30:48 -0400, tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
>wrote:
>
>>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:
>>
>>> >Worse still, if I am redhat, I cannot distribute perlfaq at all.
>>>
>>> What is stopping you from distributing perlfaq if you are redhat?
>>
>>Redhat is making a distribution for profit as part of a commercial
>>enterprise. This is prohibited by the perlfaq license.
>
>Bullshit, and you know it.
>
>I've deconstructed this for you. Please read it before you continue to
>make this statement from ignorance.
But you made it up. Nowhere in the notice does it mention not raising
the price because of the inclusion. It says " (2) that no charges beyond
reproduction be involved". It turns out to be badly worded but there
was no reason for anyone to assume that.
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com
------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1998 22:08:33 -0500
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k82vh$blf$1@Mars.mcs.net>
In article <q0t91.9$5K2.3384@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>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.
It is reasonable and expected that a commercial library vendor would
charge royalties if you *include* their code in your package. I'm
talking about dynamic linking or user-does-the link situations where
the end user has already legally obtained the right to use the
components in question separately and the code you wish to distribute
is your own. Suppose Microsoft claimed that all other software that
used any Microsoft DLL's at runtime were derived works and could only be
distributed under Microsoft's terms. That is the same claim that
the GPL makes. I don't think Microsoft could get away with claiming
to own other people's work that happens to use their published interfaces
and I don't see why the GPL should either.
>>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".
If they don't consider those synonymous they are living in the past.
There was a time when you needed the source to make anything work.
Now you expect most of the components to be well tested and you
just want to add things.
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 03:32:50 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <56E3263A7B004AF2.BEA9EC42ED824C30.DAA9365E126DD4FA@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 23 May 1998 21:34:27 -0500, les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>In article <6093DAACC7C62F2F.99AA97EDE04E2DCE.E56E0D83DDB7C480@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>le Fanttme <fantome/@/usa/./net> wrote:
>>On 23 May 1998 19:30:48 -0400, tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:
>>>
>>>> >Worse still, if I am redhat, I cannot distribute perlfaq at all.
>>>>
>>>> What is stopping you from distributing perlfaq if you are redhat?
>>>
>>>Redhat is making a distribution for profit as part of a commercial
>>>enterprise. This is prohibited by the perlfaq license.
>>
>>Bullshit, and you know it.
>>
>>I've deconstructed this for you. Please read it before you continue to
>>make this statement from ignorance.
>
>But you made it up. Nowhere in the notice does it mention not raising
>the price because of the inclusion. It says " (2) that no charges beyond
>reproduction be involved". It turns out to be badly worded but there
>was no reason for anyone to assume that.
There is an implied statement that most people are missing by quoting
permission/restriction (2) out of context. In context, it means: "(2)
that no charges beyond reproduction [of this text] be involved [for
this text]." The significant portion is that the copyright statement
makes no statement about anything but the text itself. Not the media
on which the text might be included, but the text itself. As part of
an aggregation, it affects only the costs of the reproduction of the
text itself.
So while my examples used dollar figures (and sizes) that were at
least partially "made up", they refer exactly to reality.
-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: 24 May 1998 13:51:21 +1000
From: trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k85fp$th9$1@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au>
abigail@fnx.com (Abigail) writes:
>Barry Margolin (barmar@bbnplanet.com) wrote on MDCCXXVI September
>MCMXCIII in <URL: news:e1q91.31$hF2.165182@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>:
>++
>++ That's only because Tom's work has a copyright notice preventing them from
>++ doing what they want with it. If Tom's work were free, by the FSF
>++ definition, they would be able to do things that cmcurtin would probably
>++ characterize as "steal". It wouldn't actually be stealing, though, since
>++ the nature of this type of free license is that it explicitly permits these
>++ activities.
>Aren't you the same Barry Margolin who claimed the list was 5 years
>old and the documentation wasn't there at the time? What is it? Was
>the item put there because the documentation wasn't there 5 years ago,
>or is it there because of the license?
This is just rhetoric. Both can be true, there is no contradiction
here.
Some perl advocates have claimed that a to-do item on the FSF's homepage
is insulting because doesn't seem to mention Tom C's documentation.
- A possible explanation of this is that it is an old item that
hasn't been updated for a while. Some people report that item
has been there for five years, so it seems quite possible.
- Another possible explaniation is that it was simply an
oversight, since the item only mentions books.
Some perl advocates have claimed that the to-do item shouldn't
be there because Tom C's documentation is "free", and calling it
anything else is "lying".
- An explanation for this is that the FSF is using it's own
defintion of free, which is clearly defined in the "What is
Free Software" part of the web page (and is in concordance
with the "Open Source" defintion that is all over the front of
www.perl.com).
- Another explanation is that this is an old item, when
saying the documentation is "free" would have been true in
either meaning, hence the FSF didn't see any need to
qualify it anyway.
One of these explains why it might have been there in the past.
The other one explains why it might continue to be there in the future.
As far as I am concerned, the FSF's posistion has been explained to the
point that I believe beyond reasonable doubt, that it is not some grand
plot to insult Perl or Tom C.
Discussing licensing conditions of documentation might be a useful and
worthwhile discussion.
Trying to assign motives to the FSF in something that is no more
than a misunderstanding is not.
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 04:38:24 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k8880$4c1$1@news.NERO.NET>
In article <4EDC36B2F88B972A.2011E45F939D6BB3.E24F0B9C30A03980@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
le Fant me <fantome/@/usa/./net> wrote:
>On 23 May 1998 00:46:29 GMT, stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John
>Stanley) wrote:
>>Suppose a book publisher wants to sell a book about computers. He hasn't
>>decided what will be in it yet, but he sets a target list price of $120.
>
>That'd have to be one hell of a book.
Why? Do you mean so that someone would buy it at $120? Irrelevant. That
is the price he set. If it bothers you, set the price at $90. For a low
volume, academic tome that isn't too far out of line. Or don't buy the
book.
>No. I'm having a hard time telling if you're deliberately being obtuse
>or you're just not getting the concept. Setting the list price of $120
>would be not quite possible at the point where he's putting it
>together.
Of course it would be possible. He can be reasonably certain that his
costs will never be higher than that. Computer manufacturers set target
prices for their hardware and then design configurations to meet that,
so it isn't unreasonable for a publisher, in a hypothetical situation,
to do the same.
>Rather, he would have to take his costs for producing the
>number of books he put together and determine the price of the book.
He knows ahead of time how much the printing and distribution charges
are. Those will not change depending on what is inside, excluding, of
course, costs for color material should he choose to include that.
He subtracts that from $120 and knows what he can pay for contents.
Then he finds content he can use for free. Whoopee!
>Since he didn't have anything to pay any authors, he would have to
>consider *only* the printing costs, and that would mean that the price
>would have to drop significantly, or he would be due a lawsuit.
Lawsuit from whom? The stockholders? Hardly. His boss? HIs boss would
love him.
Ahhh, you mean from the authors of the perl stuff. No, I don't think so.
We were told that including this documentation was legal and acceptable
as long as the price of the published medium did not increase because
the it was included.
>The way that I'm reading Tom's restriction, the publisher could not
>charge more than $15.00 if it only cost $15.00 to publish the book.
The way I am reading what has been said in this group is that he can
charge what he wants to, as long as what he charges is not based on what
is inside -- i.e., price does not go up because perl is inside.
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 04:49:08 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k88s4$4h1$1@news.NERO.NET>
In article <35677E59.17AE4E20@zeta.org.au>,
Peter G. Martin <peterm@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>Jeez, the court system must have changed a lot recently over there in
>the U.S.! Or could it be that this is just what it looks like:
>a bullshit argument ?
It is a hypothetical argument, meant to explore the statement that
certain material can be included on a CD-ROM as long as the price of the
CD-ROM is not based on that material being included. I put the context
into one of books, because it has already been stated that publishing
the stuff in books is bad. If it is acceptable on a CD-ROM, why not in a
book?
>Most places, and most times in the past, this kind of behaviour would
>be seen for what it is -- a sham and a piece of outright plagiarism.
I am unsure how it would be plagiarism. Each document in the book
contains the name of the author just like it does on the CD-ROM and on
the net. You need to come up with a different excuse.
>Law does not depend entirely on technicalities in the way some
>imaginative nit-pickers would have it.
Yes, in many cases, it does depend on technicalities. "If it don't fit,
you must acquit!" "If you didn't record precisely how much blood you
extracted from the defendant, then you can't tell us that none of it was
used to spike the crime scene."
>And there's the protection against all this jiggery-pokery, and the
I'm unsure of the legal meaning of "jiggery-pokery". Can you provide a
definition?
>weakness of all this bush-lawyer stuff that's been going on here...
>It's usually called the "reasonable man" test. (OK, it was pre-fem-lib
>days when it was established a few hundreds of years ago.)
Can you explain why the book example is incorrect if the CR-ROM one is
not?
>And on the other side, US copyright law still has the "reasonable use"
>provisions as it always does....
Copyright law has no "reasonable use" provision. It has/had something
called "fair use", but this hypothetical example does not rely on that.
The material has alredy been approved for distribution. We are just
examining the cost limits of the licensing.
>Don't think this fantastic $120 job would pass any "reasonable use"
>provisions anywhere..
Don't think it has to.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 14:38:16 +1000
From: David Coldrick <davidc@selectst.com>
Subject: Re: Perl 5.005_xxx
Message-Id: <3567A438.DB7243A0@selectst.com>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------A0FB425712C8F944356C569A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tom Phoenix wrote:
> I'd tell you where to find a test version, but no one should try
> one of the test versions who can't find it. :-)
My, but this is a strange newsgroup! So much energy seems to be expending in
*not* telling people things.
Give the man a break - if he wants to try a test version, giving him a URL
would be real easy, and save him lots of fooling around, trying to find it.
Or is this perhaps an initiation ceremony of sorts. Find the test versions,
become a man.
I dunno, stone knife circumcision might be easier . . . :-)
Regards,
David
PS Not denigrating what you do in this group, Tom. I'm definitely among the
many who greatly appreciate your contributions.
--------------A0FB425712C8F944356C569A
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for David Coldrick
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: David Coldrick
n: Coldrick;David
org: SELECT Software Tools
email;internet: davidc@selectst.com
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------A0FB425712C8F944356C569A--
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 19:57:54 -0700
From: "Dan Spencer" <dspencer@accessone.com>
Subject: Perl Newbie (no nothing) needs help (LONG)
Message-Id: <6k826u$hth$1@supernews.com>
I am competent writing HTML by hand, but I am having trouble with Perl
scripting. I have found a web host that I can run my own CGI scripts with,
so I thought that I would give it a try.
A success: I found menu.cgi and I uploaded to my cgi-bin. I did not need
to be edited. I CHMOD'd it and it works great.
Where I am having problems is with ready made scripts that I put into
Notepad. If I copy and paste a script into Notepad then save it as *.pl, it
does not work. This also goes for scripts that I download. I had an admin
from my web host go in and take a look at one that I had installed in my
cgi-bin that was not working. I had my an error in my SSI file and he
corrected it. Since he took a look at the script, I can copy it onto my
hard drive, edit it, rename it, and it will work. I have noticed that there
are special block characters throughout the code that weren't there before.
If I copy and paste a raw script from the web into Notepad and edit it the
same way, it will not work. When I save it as a *.pl file in Notepad and
choose "All Files" as "Save As Type", it will not work. It is saved as
*.pl.txt and I have to rename it after showing the MS-DOS extensions. Even
then, it will not work.
To summarize, this will not work:
1) Copy and paste raw script into Notepad.
2) Edit Perl files that have been downloaded.
This is what works:
1) Scripts that don't need editing.
2) Edit script that has been looked at and probably resaved by web host
admin.
I know enough about Perl to follow instructions to edit the code. I need to
know what I can do to save it correctly in Win 95. I bought "Perl 5 For
Dummies" today and it came with Perl 5 on a CD-ROM. I have thumbed quickly
through the book and it says that Perl scripts can be hand coded in Notepad.
What am I doing wrong? If I am just going to edit freely available Perl
scripts, do I really need the book?
Thanks in advance,
Dan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 03:09:52 GMT
From: sowmaster@juicepigs.com (Bob Trieger)
Subject: Re: Perl Newbie (no nothing) needs help (LONG)
Message-Id: <6k834d$e9h$1@ligarius.ultra.net>
[posted & mailed]
"Dan Spencer" <dspencer@accessone.com> wrote:
-> Where I am having problems is with ready made scripts that I put into
-> Notepad. If I copy and paste a script into Notepad then save it as *.pl, it
-> does not work. This also goes for scripts that I download. I had an admin
-> from my web host go in and take a look at one that I had installed in my
-> cgi-bin that was not working. I had my an error in my SSI file and he
-> corrected it. Since he took a look at the script, I can copy it onto my
-> hard drive, edit it, rename it, and it will work. I have noticed that there
-> are special block characters throughout the code that weren't there before.
-> If I copy and paste a raw script from the web into Notepad and edit it the
-> same way, it will not work. When I save it as a *.pl file in Notepad and
-> choose "All Files" as "Save As Type", it will not work. It is saved as
-> *.pl.txt and I have to rename it after showing the MS-DOS extensions. Even
-> then, it will not work.
Don't cut and paste between platforms. Instead you should be using FTP and
setting the mode to ascii. If you don't know how to use FTP it is very basic
and there is help all over the net.
As for notepad appending .txt to your files, put the name in quotes and it
won't do it. IE.. save the file as "file.pl"
HTH
Bob Trieger | Titanic: big boat, bigger
sowmaster@juicepigs.com | iceberg, big deal
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 04:06:50 GMT
From: splitenz@NOSPAMrogers.wave.ca (Earthling)
Subject: Perl/mSQL/Win32
Message-Id: <35679bf5.18449510@news>
Evening folks,
I have been doing some fiddling with the Win32 version of Perl
and mSQLd also for Win32 (don't have access to a unix machine).
I have installed Perl and everything runs ok, I have installed
mSQL and it runs fine as well now I am wondering if I can use the mSQL
interface written for Perl under Win32. I downloaded what I thought
would do it but tried to install and it flopped on me. I am wondering
if anyone else has attempted doing this at all and if so, where did
you start :-)
If you can offer any suggestions at all, please mail me.
Thank you and good night,
- Scott
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 04:03:41 GMT
From: Shimpei Yamashita <shimpei+usenet+.mil+.gov@BOFH.patnet.caltech.edu>
Subject: Re: Perl/Wall lingo question
Message-Id: <6k866t$31m@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Andrew Dunbar <andrew@nospam.gpsoft.com.au> writes:
>
>One wonders what should be done with a phenomenon which
>one cannot understand yet can prove.
In the version I heard, those get sent to an economics journal. And if
it violates the law of excluded middle, you send it to a theology
journal.
>Probably physics too. Like the wave/particle duality?
Wave/particle duality is "provable" in the same sense that the theory
of relativity is "provable." They aren't provable in the mathematical
sense, but there would be a heck of a lot of explaining to do if they
aren't. As far as understanding goes, well, I found it easier to grok
than C++....:-)
--
Shimpei Yamashita <http://www.patnet.caltech.edu/%7Eshimpei/>
perl -w -e '$_="not a perl hacker\n";$q=qq;(.);x9;$qq=qq;345123h896789,;;;$s=
pack(qq;H6;,q;6a7573;);$qq=qq;s,^$q,$s$qq;;$qq=~s;(\d);\$$1;g;eval$qq;print;'
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 00:58:13 GMT
From: mensch@spinfo.uni-koeln.de (Guido Mensching)
Subject: Problems with "print"
Message-Id: <6k7rb5$icr@news.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE>
When printing something to the web-client, the print command works
in some cases, but in others it doesn't.
E.g.
print $string;
works, but
if (pos $string > 1) {print STDOUT "No result"}
doesn't.
If I run the program locally under UNIX, both lines work.
Can anybody help me?
I didn't find anything inthe FAQs I read.
Thanks in advance.
--
==========================================================================
Guido Mensching --- Linguistic Data Processing --- University of Cologne
mensch@spinfo.uni-koeln.de --- Tel. 49-221-4704430 --- FAX: 49-221-4705193
See http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de for information about our Department.
==========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 04:45:57 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: Guido Mensching <mensch@spinfo.uni-koeln.de>
Subject: Re: Problems with "print"
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980523214506.24130L-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On 24 May 1998, Guido Mensching wrote:
> print $string;
>
> works, but
>
> if (pos $string > 1) {print STDOUT "No result"}
>
> doesn't.
I don't think that the pos function is doing what you think it is doing.
Could that be the problem? See perlfunc. Hope this helps!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1998 19:25:13 -0700
From: tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <6k80e9$g06$1@halcyon.com>
Abigail <abigail@fnx.com> wrote:
>It's quite silly to call them "urgent" then. Someone might pick an
>item, invest time to write documentation, only to hear "oh nice, but
>that was done 3 years ago". I've been working with Perl for more than
If one were a complete idiot, that indeed might happen. However, anyone
with more than two digits in their IQ would probably have the sense to
contact FSF first. Hell, the instuctions in the task list tell you to
do that.
There are plenty of things to object to with FSF. There is no need to
up silly new ones.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:13:17 -0400
From: "Atsushi Amemiya" <a.amemiya@asahi-jc.com>
Subject: Upload File via Web
Message-Id: <6k25ne$3ft@netaxs.com>
To Whom It May Concern:
Is it possible to write a CGI program in Perl that would let users upload
local files to a server from a web page? I don't know if it's written in
Perl, but Geocities' file manager does let users upload local files to their
server from the web.
Does anyone know? I hope I could see a code example....
Atsushi
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 04:47:29 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: Atsushi Amemiya <a.amemiya@asahi-jc.com>
Subject: Re: Upload File via Web
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980523214613.24130M-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Thu, 21 May 1998, Atsushi Amemiya wrote:
> Is it possible to write a CGI program in Perl that would let users
> upload local files to a server from a web page?
If that can be written in C or Fortran, it can also be written in Perl.
If you need to learn how the protocols work to make that possible, check
the docs, FAQs, and newsgroups related to the web. Good luck!
--
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 2707
**************************************
