[9092] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2710 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Sun May 24 19:07:26 1998
Date: Sun, 24 May 98 16:00:27 -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 Sun, 24 May 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 2710
Today's topics:
Re: A Perl starter question about rounding variables... (Tom Grydeland)
Re: Clearly define "free software" (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Clearly define "free software" (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Clearly define "free software" (Tim Smith)
Fastest way to read the last 'n' records in a file (Phil Taylor)
Re: Fastest way to read the last 'n' records in a file <phousto@cse.dnd.ca>
Re: Fastest way to read the last 'n' records in a file <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Fastest way to read the last 'n' records in a file (Phil Taylor)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Fergus Henderson)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Fergus Henderson)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Fergus Henderson)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Andreas Borchert)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (le Fanttme)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Fergus Henderson)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Fergus Henderson)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Kai Henningsen)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (le Fanttme)
Need Help: HTML- Forms + CGI + Perl <andreas.frenko@gmx.de>
Perl Win95 Question (Leiming Qian)
Re: Perl Win95 Question (Jim Michael)
Re: Perl Win95 Question <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Perl/Wall lingo question <metcher@spider.herston.uq.edu.au>
Problem with Crypt command. Passwords don't match. (Brian Franklin)
Re: Problem with Crypt command. Passwords don't match. <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Problem with Crypt command. Passwords don't match. (Brian Franklin)
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit (Fergus Henderson)
Where is perldoc in WinNT or am I missing something? (Jobst Schmalenbach)
Re: Where is perldoc in WinNT or am I missing something <metcher@spider.herston.uq.edu.au>
Re: Win32 NT Perl Wrapper (Gurusamy Sarathy)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 20:12:37 GMT
From: Tom.Grydeland@phys.uit.no (Tom Grydeland)
Subject: Re: A Perl starter question about rounding variables...
Message-Id: <slrn6mgvpl.1v4.Tom.Grydeland@mitra.phys.uit.no>
On Sat, 23 May 1998 02:27:21 +0300,
Mantvydas <udo@puni.osf.lt> wrote:
> What functions from which modules are to be used for rounding variables?
> I found somewhere mentioning floor(), ceil() and round()... But I don't have
> the modules with their implementation...
Some questions are asked more often than others. These are called
"Frequently Asked Questions", abbreviated FAQ.
In many cases, to avoid answering the same questions over and over,
some helpful soul compiles a list of such questions with authoritative
answers. It is commonly considered a minimum effort to search for such
a list and consult it before posting your problem to the newsgroup
-- especially if you're a beginner, since your problem is then even less
likely to be new. --
With your copy of perl, you should have received extensive
documentation, and the Perl FAQ is part of this documentation.
A search for the word "round" in the headlines of the FAQ pages gives
only three hits:
perlfaq4.pod: =head2 Does perl have a round function? What about ceil()
and floor()?
perlfaq6.pod: =head2 What does it mean that regexps are greedy? How can
I get around it?
perlfaq8.pod: =head2 How do I start a process in the background?
I suggest you try those.
--
//Tom Grydeland <Tom.Grydeland@phys.uit.no>
- Do radioactive cats have 18 half-lives? -
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 14:23:57 -0500
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <6k9s4d$qi0$1@Venus.mcs.net>
In article <3567cffc.0@news.ivm.net>, <Klaus.Schilling@home.ivm.de> wrote:
>>
>> Re: Clearly define "free software"
>
>>Would the recipient be restricted? Those who need the modified package
>>would probably have the proprietary library, anyway. What RMS has done
>>is made it so that useful programs with useful enhancements based
>>against proprietary libraries (again, such as Oracle) can't be
>>produced.
>
>Proprietary software like oracle is immoral.
Why do you think that? I can understand the concept that you do
not want to pay for software that someone else developed and therefore
owns. I don't understand the concept that the existence of
this work is immoral. Is someone harmed by the fact that this
work, which wouldn't otherwise exist, is available to people willing
to help recover the cost of it's development and encourage further
such work?
>Write a GNU-GPLed replacement for
>it, if you can't live without something like oracle, and then there won't
>be any problems left.
Oh, I think there are plenty of real problems that will be left.
>No software is truely useful unless it is free.
Please explain how the usefulness of software relates in any way to
the terms of obtaining it.
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 14:36:20 -0500
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <6k9srk$qpd$1@Venus.mcs.net>
In article <6k8do1$lgv$1@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
Ilya Zakharevich <ilya@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to Christopher Seawood
><cls@seawood.org>],
>who wrote in article <wrK91.493$r11.1001111@news.san.rr.com>:
>> 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.
>>
>> Actually, I was talking about distributing a linked program that
>> consists of GPL'd and non-GPL'd parts. And believe me, this is not
>> my idea, but what I was told by RMS.
>
>Same here. This is was a frightening testcase: I distribute
>readline.dll for a particular platform.
>
> *One cannot dynalink a propriatory program with this DLL.*
>
>Note that this is exactly look-and-feel copyrighting, since to link a
>program with a DLL requires only informing the linker the name of DLL
>and the name of the export point of this DLL. Thus prohibiting
>someone to link with this DLL boils down (though only via technical
>details of linking) to prohibiting *interface*.
>
>This is wrong. This is horribly wrong.
The GPL does not (and cannot) limit what you do with your own copy,
so if you modify it to link with someone else's libraries you
are free to use it that way. However, no matter how useful the
modification might be, the GPL makes the claim that you cannot
distribute it to anyone else, in spite of the fact that the modification
is entirely your own work. But, even this is wrong and would be
challenged if any major company tried to make such a claim.
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 15:39:48 -0700
From: tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <6ka7jk$49k$1@halcyon.com>
robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com> wrote:
>What the FSF actually says about this, I believe, is that if there is
>another implementation available then linking does not make your
>program a derived work, but if the GPL library is the only
>implementation, then linking can only be considered linking *with that
>implementation* and thus you are creating a derived work and must GPL
>your program.
FSF is somewhat confused on this point.
Suppose we have a program, P, and two libraries, L1, and L2, either of
which P can dynamically link with. If you *actually* link P with L1,
then the combined thing in memory is a derivative work of P and L1. It
is *not* a derivative work of L2. If you *actually* link P with L2,
then the combined thing in memory is a derivative work of P and L2. It
is *not* a derivative work of L1.
If P itself contains some code from L1, it is (ignoring the possibility
of fair use) a derivative work of L1, regardless of the existence of L2.
If P does not contain any copyrighted code from L1, it is not a
derivative work of L1, again regardless of the existence or lack thereof
of L2.
If P itself is not a derivative work of L1, then there is only one case
in which the existence of L2 matters. The user, who actually combines P
and L1, is producing a derivative work of both, and needs the permission
of both copyright holders. If the user does not have permission from
the owner of L1's copyright, the user is violating copyright. In this
case, if P has no substantial use that does not involve the user doing
that, the author of P can be held to be liable for the user's copyright
infringement. This is called contributory infringement. In this case,
if L2 exists, and the owner of L2's copyright allows linking with P,
then P does have a substantial non-infringing use, and P is not liable
for users who link with L1 instead of L2.
Unfortunately for FSF, they have stated that it does *not* violate the
GPL for a user to link (not just dynamically link, by the way) GPL'ed
code with non-GPL'ed code as long as the user does not try to distribute
the result. That eliminates any possibility of contributory
infringement.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 19:47:23 GMT
From: phil@ackltd.demon.co.uk (Phil Taylor)
Subject: Fastest way to read the last 'n' records in a file
Message-Id: <356875e0.17007929@news.demon.co.uk>
I want to add a new record to the start of a file, so that later, I
can read the most recently stored 'n' records quickly. What is the
most efficient way of doing this?
Thanks
Phil Taylor
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 22:12:36 GMT
From: Phil Houstoun <phousto@cse.dnd.ca>
Subject: Re: Fastest way to read the last 'n' records in a file
Message-Id: <35689C03.24DB4B3E@cse.dnd.ca>
Phil Taylor wrote:
>
> I want to add a new record to the start of a file, so that later, I
> can read the most recently stored 'n' records quickly. What is the
> most efficient way of doing this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil Taylor
I don't know of any way to 'prepend' to a file other than appending the
whole of the existing file onto the new record. If the records are
fixed-length vice 'text' records, you could just append them to the end
of the file and then seek and read 'n', seek and read 'n - 1', etc.
Another way would be to have your records keyed on a timestamp and
retrieve based on reverse key order using, perhaps, something like tie?
--
Phil Houstoun Voice: (613) 991-7173
Email: remove the 'j' in pjhousto@cse.dnd.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 22:29:45 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: Phil Taylor <phil@ackltd.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Fastest way to read the last 'n' records in a file
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980524152120.4745P-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Sun, 24 May 1998, Phil Taylor wrote:
> I want to add a new record to the start of a file, so that later, I can
> read the most recently stored 'n' records quickly. What is the most
> efficient way of doing this?
This is essentially the same problem that the FAQ oxymoronically describes
as "append to the beginning of a file". But perhaps you should really be
using a database which would let you seek to any record quickly. Hope this
helps!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 20:39:44 GMT
From: phil@ackltd.demon.co.uk (Phil Taylor)
Subject: Re: Fastest way to read the last 'n' records in a file
Message-Id: <356883d2.20578634@news.demon.co.uk>
I couldn't agree more with Tom's suggestion of using a database, but
unfortunately my ISP won't allow me to do this. So until they change
their policy looks like I'll have to brush up on some ageing COBOL
techniques.
But thanks for the tip re the FAQ, I'll look it up.
Thanks
Phil Taylor
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 14:31:41 -0500
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k9sit$qm4$1@Venus.mcs.net>
In article <56E3263A7B004AF2.BEA9EC42ED824C30.DAA9365E126DD4FA@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
le Fanttme <fantome/@/usa/./net> wrote:
>>>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]."
If by 'implied' you mean that you made it up, OK. But that's not
what it says.
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.
There is no reality here. Suppose I sell a book that consists of
nice cover art and blank pages for $100. I also sell the one
containing the same cover art and printed pages of the material
in question for $100.07. That's just as real. The fact that
no one would buy the first one is irrelevant and the cover art
constitutes the aggregation.
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 20:02:46 GMT
From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k9ud6$d4i$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
>Nathan Hand <nathanh@chirp.com.au> writes:
>> [someone wrote:]
>> > And as far as the bells and whistles of an OS, silly things like
>> > bash, emacs, etc...well, shit.
>>
>> Silly things? Without the GNU compiler, the GNU editors, the
>> GNU text utilities, the GNU bin utilities, the GNU debuggers
>> and the GNU shell utilities, Linux would be nothing.
>
>You seem to call everything "GNU" that is under the GPL.
At a guess I'd say he was referring to gcc, emacs, texutils, binutils,
gdb, bash, and shutils. As far as I'm aware, these are all "GNU"
packages. Certainly there are many non-GNU packages which are
under the GPL, but I don't think that is the case for these ones.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 20:34:48 GMT
From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6ka098$dks$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fantome) writes:
>On 23 May 1998 16:16:46 GMT, fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson) wrote:
>
>>>Rather, he would have to take his costs for producing the
>>>number of books he put together and determine the price of the book.
>>
>>Hang on, he's not going to be selling this book at cost price.
>>After all, he wants to make a profit, so that he can donate some
>>to the FSF, feed his family, etc. etc.
>
>If the core of his book is the PerlFAQ, he cannot sell it except at
>cost. If he sells it for profit, he has to contact Tom C. to negotiate
>royalties or permission.
Who decides what constitutes the "core"?
If PerlFAQ constitutes 60% of his book, does that make it the "core"?
How about 10%? How about 0.1% ?
I don't see anything in the license that says anything about
whether or not the PerlFAQ constitutes the "core" of what you're
selling.
>>>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.
>>
>>This reading would forbid distribution by RedHat and the like,
>>since they make a profit.
>
>Again, I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or you just
>don't get it. The percentage of the PerlFAQ against the remainder of
>the CD is significant in this -- RedHat just merely can't make a
>profit on the minuscule percentage of the cost of the CD that is
>reflected by the PerlFAQ.
It seems to me that if PerlFAQ constitutes say 0.1% of each CD,
then PerlFAQ is responsible for about 0.1% of the profit
(possibly more or less, depending on the relative market value
of PerlFAQ and the other things on the CD).
If RedHat sells say 100,000 CDs at $50 each making $40 per CD
for a total of $4,000,000 profit, then PerlFAQ has been responsible
for about $4,000 profit.
What RedHat is doing would only be permitted by Tom C.'s license if the
profit generated by selling PerlFAQ was $0. I don't see how RedHat can
prove in court that none of the profit they made was due to PerlFAQ.
IANAL, but if I was RedHat, I would not include PerlFAQ on my CDs
without first getting legal advice or Tom C.'s explicit written
permission.
>>>-- and that price is probably not affected by the presence of the
>>>PerlFAQ but of other packages.)
>>
>>"Probably". Are you confident that you can prove that in a court of
>>law? What about when the plaintiff wheels out customers who will
>>swear under oath that they wouldn't have bought the CD if it didn't
>>have the PerlFAQ?
>
>Just the PerlFAQ, not the distribution, right? I find it highly
>unlikely that the plaintiff would be able to do so. Based on something
>that Abigail said in a post I read recently, the PerlFAQ is somewhere
>between 0k and 550k -- out of 640Mb. If we assume about a 250kb file
>(I don't know the exact size of the PerlFAQ these days), that's
>0.0390625% of the size and cost of the CD. The aggregator would be
>quite welcome to add other things which take up more space and permit
>greater profit.
>
>A book based entirely on the PerlFAQ (100%) wouldn't be able to make a
>profit as such. If it was 50% based on the PerlFAQ and 50% based on
>new material (and the two were clearly delineated as such), then the
>publisher would be able to make a profit on the 50% non-PerlFAQ.
If they sell their book for $100 a copy, and they are making $80
profit per copy, how much of that is due to the PerlFAQ and how much
is due to the other half? Who gets to decide how to split the
profit? The publisher's (creative) accountants? Tom C.?
I think in the end the courts would decide how much of the
profit was split between each half. But I very much doubt
they would say that the PerlFAQ part was not responsible for
*any* part of the profit.
This doesn't seem like a particularly mind-blowing analysis, so I could
echo back your line "I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse
or you just don't get it." at this point. However, I prefer to
concentrate on the argument rather than attacking the speaker.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 20:52:19 GMT
From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6ka1a3$e0m$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
>In article <m2wwbclxr6.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
>David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>
># > I can't see it myself. And I haven't heard TC abusing Red Hat lately.
>#
># If he wanted to, he could sue them for inclusion of his FAQ. So they
># are either being careless in including the stuff, or relying on his
># goodwill.
>
>Sure, and I can sue you for sending news to my news server. And just like
>Tom, I would lose such a lawsuit. Probably wouldn't get past the pretrial
>hearing.
Why do you think Tom C. would lose?
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 23:40:24 +0100
From: borchert@turing.mathematik.uni-ulm.de (Andreas Borchert)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <356893c8.0@news.uni-ulm.de>
On 22 May 1998 13:12:17 +0200, Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@frege.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
> tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) writes:
>
> > They are free-gratis, but they are not free-libre. I want free-libre,
> > so that after I modify the program I can modify the documentation to
> > match.
>
> This is one thing I do not get. The documentation that comes with
> Perl 5 not only is extensive but also (apart from the faq) under the
> same copyight as Perl, i.e. free-libre. I just ftp'ed the source again
> and I surely canot see any restrictive copyrights.
Take, for example, a look at end of the perltoot manual page under
the heading COPYRIGHT:
``While it is copyright by me with all rights reserved,
permission is granted to freely distribute verbatim copies of this
document provided that no modifications outside of formatting be made,
and that this notice remain intact.''
It may be confusing, though, that the top level README suggests that
the whole package is free in the sense of the GPL or the Artistic
License.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Borchert, Universitaet Ulm, SAI, Helmholtzstr. 18, 89069 Ulm, Germany
E-Mail: borchert@mathematik.uni-ulm.de
WWW: http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/sai/borchert/
PGP key available via ``finger borchert@laborix.mathematik.uni-ulm.de''
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 22:45:22 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <266840A8EFC59C66.E01225276A0A8DE6.FF7D2DBB7D6F2649@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 24 May 1998 20:34:48 GMT, fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson) wrote:
>fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fantome) writes:
>>If the core of his book is the PerlFAQ, he cannot sell it except at
>>cost. If he sells it for profit, he has to contact Tom C. to negotiate
>>royalties or permission.
>
>Who decides what constitutes the "core"?
>
>If PerlFAQ constitutes 60% of his book, does that make it the "core"?
>How about 10%? How about 0.1% ?
>
>I don't see anything in the license that says anything about
>whether or not the PerlFAQ constitutes the "core" of what you're
>selling.
The license doesn't need to -- or are you truly being wilfully obtuse
about this? If the PerlFAQ constitutes 60% of the book, then the other
40% could be the source of profit -- the 60% of the cost associated
with the PerlFAQ has to be sold at cost.
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>This reading would forbid distribution by RedHat and the like,
>>>since they make a profit.
>>
>>Again, I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or you just
>>don't get it. The percentage of the PerlFAQ against the remainder of
>>the CD is significant in this -- RedHat just merely can't make a
>>profit on the minuscule percentage of the cost of the CD that is
>>reflected by the PerlFAQ.
>
>It seems to me that if PerlFAQ constitutes say 0.1% of each CD,
>then PerlFAQ is responsible for about 0.1% of the profit
>(possibly more or less, depending on the relative market value
>of PerlFAQ and the other things on the CD).
Incorrect. The PerlFAQ constitutes 0.1% of the *cost* of the CD, not
the profit. The license on the PerlFAQ does *not* extend its license
to the remainder of the CD, but only the PerlFAQ itself.
>IANAL, but if I was RedHat, I would not include PerlFAQ on my CDs
>without first getting legal advice or Tom C.'s explicit written
>permission.
Well, since the PerlFAQ is being included as part of the Perl
distribution, there's no limitation whatsoever. Per the license
itself.
>>A book based entirely on the PerlFAQ (100%) wouldn't be able to make a
>>profit as such. If it was 50% based on the PerlFAQ and 50% based on
>>new material (and the two were clearly delineated as such), then the
>>publisher would be able to make a profit on the 50% non-PerlFAQ.
>
>If they sell their book for $100 a copy, and they are making $80
>profit per copy, how much of that is due to the PerlFAQ and how much
>is due to the other half? Who gets to decide how to split the
>profit? The publisher's (creative) accountants? Tom C.?
If they make $80 profit per copy, then they are charging too much for
the book given that 50% of the value of the book is from the PerlFAQ.
As a guestimate, if the book cost $20 per copy to create, $10 of that
would be attributable to the PerlFAQ. So if the publisher would have
to maybe charge $60 to make the $40 which would be due to the 50% that
the publisher created from whole cloth.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fantome*@*vnet*.*net * http://fantome.vnet.net/
---------------* aziegler*@*vcela*.*com * -------------------------
Remove the stars to email me * Ni bhionn an rath ach
my words my opinions my ideas * mar a mbionn an smacht
-- I Argue Ideas, Not Beliefs: Give Up Your Dogma --
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 20:48:56 GMT
From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6ka13o$dvi$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fantome) writes:
>[courtesy copied to Tom C.]
>On 23 May 1998 16:20:50 GMT, fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson) wrote:
>
>>fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fantome) writes:
>>
>>>So as long as the price for the CD is not increased more than $0.07
>>>because of the inclusion of Perl, the restriction has been met.
>>
>>Increased from what?
>>
>>Suppose I sell two CDs, one for $100 that contains 500M of
>>"the ultimate in unbreakable encryption -- one time pads",
>>and one for $100.07 that contains the same, plus the PerlFAQ.
>>Is that OK?
>
>I don't see there being a problem with this.
Now, what if it turns out that the $100.07 dual package ends up
being a much better seller than the $100 CD full of random bits?
Is that still OK?
If I put the PerlFAQ into a book with two chapters,
one being the PerlFAQ and the other being my own poetry
entitled "101 Monkeys", and sell it for $100, is that OK?
Of course, I'm also selling copies of "101 Monkeys" alone for $100.
So with the new book I'm just throwing in the PerlFAQ for free.
Is that OK?
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 21:14:16 GMT
From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6ka2j8$edt$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
>trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD) wrote:
>
># pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
># >these actions, even if we did not know that he has personally, repeatedly,
># >stated that this is OK, the fact that he has done nothing to stop this
># >manner of commercial reproduction is evidence that it is allowed. In
># >other words, if he does nothing to stop it, then he has in effect
># >relinquished his right to stop it.
>#
># Rubbish. He has relinquished no rights whatsoever, unless he gives
># explicit permission. He can grant explicit permission a million
># times, and then still owns the copyright, and the right to sue anyone
># that doesn't have explicit permission.
>
>That is not true.
It's not true that he has relinquished no rights whatsoever,
but I think he still has the right to stop it
(just not to sue for damages).
>Copyright infringement cannot, in most cases, be sought
>arbitrarily. If Tom knows people are putting perlfaq on CDs and does
>nothing about it, he cannot, a year later, decide to finally come after
>people who decide to do the same thing. He can ask them to stop, but he
>cannot seek damages. What you don't protect, you lose.
He can ask them all to stop, and then if they don't stop,
I think he can then sue them, can't he?
>But an even more interesting part of copyright law is "market effect,"
>which is related to this. perlfaq comes with Perl, which is distributed
>on hundreds of CPAN mirrors around the world, and (well-known to Tom),
>thousands upon thousands of CD-ROMs. If I put it on my CD-ROM, it would
>have no measureable market effect, and any infringement would not be
>actionable.
Hmm... what if Tom C. decides to publish his FAQ as a book,
and at the same time sends letters to all the CD-ROM distributors
such as RedHat asking them to stop distributing PerlFAQ.
Legallly, they would have to stop, or face being sued for damages,
right?
I think he could reasonably argue in court that if PerlFAQ
remains readily available on CD, this could inhibit the market
for his book, so I don't think the CD distributors could rely on the
defense that their distribution had no market effect.
Is that correct?
>But all of this is irrelevant in light of the fact that Tom has, himself,
>stated that including it on such CD-ROMs with the rest of the Perl
>distribution / CPAN is OK.
True, but of course it would be much better if this was stated
explicitly in the license conditions distributed with the PerlFAQ
itself rather than just as some Usenet post.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1998 00:02:00 +0200
From: kaih=6uYGfLr1w-B@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6uYGfLr1w-B@khms.westfalen.de>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) wrote on 22.05.98 in <pudge-2205981506250001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>:
> Books do NOT require electronics. AFAIK, CDs do, not just for creating,
> but for reading.
Just to confuse the issues:
* What if you print the bits and bytes as barcode in the book? Is that
electronic distribution? If not, how does it differ from the CD?
* Suppose you use an OCR font instead, and print a hex dump?
* Suppose OCR font and simply the original text?
* And of course, normal font.
Now I don't doubt that there's a legal boundary somewhere in there, but I
also do not think it's a reasonably useful boundary for anyone beyond
lawyers.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 22:46:31 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <C2A265280084D84D.94786F197063B42C.55ED096D6A40D6A2@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 24 May 1998 20:48:56 GMT, fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson) wrote:
>Now, what if it turns out that the $100.07 dual package ends up
>being a much better seller than the $100 CD full of random bits?
>Is that still OK?
>
>If I put the PerlFAQ into a book with two chapters,
>one being the PerlFAQ and the other being my own poetry
>entitled "101 Monkeys", and sell it for $100, is that OK?
>Of course, I'm also selling copies of "101 Monkeys" alone for $100.
>So with the new book I'm just throwing in the PerlFAQ for free.
>Is that OK?
Again, I don't see a problem with this according to Tom's license.
-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 21:39:22 +0200
From: Andreas Frenko <andreas.frenko@gmx.de>
Subject: Need Help: HTML- Forms + CGI + Perl
Message-Id: <3568776A.93CA5208@gmx.de>
Hello,
is there anybody, who has experience in connecting HTML- Forms
with a Perl- Script,
so that the entries will be saved into a text- file on the
server.
If you can help me, please drop a note to:
andreas.frenko@gmx.de
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
L A S T M I N U T E - Newsletter
http://home.t-online.de/home/lastminute/
+++ aktuelle Last- Minute Reiseangebote bequem per eMail +++
zum Anmelden einfach eine leere eMail an last-minute@gmx.de
mit dem Betreff (Subject): "Anmelden"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 21:21:49 GMT
From: lqian@arcturus.csl.uiuc.edu (Leiming Qian)
Subject: Perl Win95 Question
Message-Id: <slrn6mh3s1.193.lqian@arcturus.csl.uiuc.edu>
Hello, I have installed Perl for Win32 in my windows machine. I have a
question here: how I can tweak Win95's registry to make it recognize Perl's
script file *.pl to be executable file and automatically run it using Perl,
so I can run whatever.pl in the command line instead of "perl whatever.pl"
every time? I know it's doable since ActiveState's perl installer seems to
be able to do that, but I can't figure out which key to modify from its
perl-install.bat file (I am using other ports of Perl).
Thanks
yours
Leiming
--
Leiming Qian: lqian@uiuc.edu | Second Year Research Assistant
Digital Signal Processing Group | Under Professor Douglas. L. Jones
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign | VIM lover, Webmania, PC expert!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think that education is expensive, you ought to try ignorance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 22:16:14 GMT
From: genepool@netcom.com (Jim Michael)
Subject: Re: Perl Win95 Question
Message-Id: <genepoolEtHF73.74K@netcom.com>
Leiming Qian (lqian@arcturus.csl.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Hello, I have installed Perl for Win32 in my windows machine. I have a
: question here: how I can tweak Win95's registry to make it recognize Perl's
: script file *.pl to be executable file and automatically run it using Perl,
: so I can run whatever.pl in the command line instead of "perl whatever.pl"
: every time? I know it's doable since ActiveState's perl installer seems to
: be able to do that, but I can't figure out which key to modify from its
: perl-install.bat file (I am using other ports of Perl).
If you're really really sure you want to do this (I prefer to associate
.pl with PFE in case I have to edit the file on a wintel box), find a .pl
file in the exploder, select it, then shift+right mouse, select Open With,
go find the perl.exe file, select it and click open. Then click the option
to always open with that application. Note that this is a Win95 config
question, not a perl question. HTH.
Cheers,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 22:21:05 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: lqian@uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Perl Win95 Question
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980524151935.4745O-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On 24 May 1998, Leiming Qian wrote:
> Subject: Perl Win95 Question
I believe that your question is answered in the Perl for Win32 FAQ.
http://cpan.perl.org/doc/FAQs/win32/Perl_for_Win32_FAQ.html
Hope this helps!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 08:52:19 +1000
From: Jaime Metcher <metcher@spider.herston.uq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Perl/Wall lingo question
Message-Id: <3568A4A3.39F5CAF0@spider.herston.uq.edu.au>
Proof without understanding is what pure maths is all about. Everybody
has heard this one, but...
An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician are arguing about how to
prove that all odd numbers are prime. They all agree that odd numbers
are prime, but differ on the proof.
The engineer says: "Don't bother about your fancy proofs - we can see
empirically for all useful cases that odd numbers are prime. For
example, 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime and 7 is prime".
The physicist says: "To truly understand this, we have to go beyond only
the useful cases. Yes, 1, 3, 5 and 7 are prime. 9 - experimental
error. 11 is prime, 13 is prime. " (This is close to the bone - the
famous Milliken experiment, which correctly determined the charge on the
electron, was fudged in just this way).
The mathematician says: "Only a theoretical proof can be considered a
proof. Well, 1 is prime, 3 is prime and the rest follow by induction."
(This was a lot funnier for first year maths students, for whom "the
rest follows by induction", which we heard every second week, was
basically equivalent to "abracadabra".)
--
Jaime Metcher
Shimpei Yamashita wrote:
>
> 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: Sun, 24 May 1998 19:46:47 GMT
From: bf14@prism.gatech.edu (Brian Franklin)
Subject: Problem with Crypt command. Passwords don't match.
Message-Id: <356877cc.282948987@news.gatech.edu>
Can anyone tell my why these two scripts produce different results?
I am writing a script that uses passwords. The first version is
similar to my intended version but it doesn't reproduce the
encrypted password. The second version without a subroutine
does gives the correct result.
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
#
# pass1.pl
#
$temp1 = "cat";
$pass1 = &encrypt_it($temp1);
$pass2 = crypt($temp1,substr($pass1,0,2));
print "pass1 is $pass1 and temp1 is $temp1 \n";
print "pass2 is $pass2 \n";
exit(1);
sub encrypt_it
{
$temp_var = @_;
@chars = (a..z);
$salt = $chars[1] . $chars[2];
return crypt($temp_var,$salt);
}
Output of Pass1.pl
pass1 is bcOfs5/t8RxuM and temp1 is cat
pass2 is bcwZYTsPDSmds
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
#
# pass2.pl
#
$temp1 = "cat";
@chars = (a..z);
$salt = $chars[1] . $chars[2];
$pass1 = crypt($temp1,$salt);
$pass2 = crypt($temp1,substr($pass1,0,2));
print "pass1 is $pass1 and temp1 is $temp1 \n";
print "pass2 is $pass2 \n";
exit(1);
Output of Pass2.pl
pass1 is bcwZYTsPDSmds and temp1 is cat
pass2 is bcwZYTsPDSmds
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 20:28:56 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: Brian Franklin <bf14@prism.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Problem with Crypt command. Passwords don't match.
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980524132433.4745N-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Sun, 24 May 1998, Brian Franklin wrote:
> $pass2 = crypt($temp1,substr($pass1,0,2));
Doing that substr neither hurts nor helps. The docs used to point out that
it's probably a waste of time.
> sub encrypt_it
> {
> $temp_var = @_;
That puts the number of parameters into $temp_var - probably not what you
wanted. This is the kind of problem that's easy to catch when you step
through your script in the debugger.
> @chars = (a..z);
> $salt = $chars[1] . $chars[2];
Now, you know that $salt will always be 'bc', right? And there are really
64 possible salt characters, not 26! :-)
Hope this helps!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 22:08:53 GMT
From: bf14@prism.gatech.edu (Brian Franklin)
Subject: Re: Problem with Crypt command. Passwords don't match.
Message-Id: <35689949.291523296@news.gatech.edu>
On Sun, 24 May 1998 20:28:56 GMT, Tom Phoenix
<rootbeer@teleport.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998, Brian Franklin wrote:
>
>> $pass2 = crypt($temp1,substr($pass1,0,2));
>
>Doing that substr neither hurts nor helps. The docs used to point out that
>it's probably a waste of time.
>
>> sub encrypt_it
>> {
>> $temp_var = @_;
>
>That puts the number of parameters into $temp_var - probably not what you
>wanted. This is the kind of problem that's easy to catch when you step
>through your script in the debugger.
>
>> @chars = (a..z);
>> $salt = $chars[1] . $chars[2];
>
>Now, you know that $salt will always be 'bc', right? And there are really
>64 possible salt characters, not 26! :-)
>
>Hope this helps!
>
>--
>Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
>Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
>
Thanks, this was meant to illustrate the problem in the simplest
form. I ran into a UNIX guru friend and he gave me a solution.
All it needed was
($temp_var) = @_;
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 19:57:37 GMT
From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <6k9u3h$d2v$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
abigail@fnx.com (Abigail) writes:
>Tyson Richard DOWD (trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au) wrote on MDCCXXVI September
>MCMXCIII in <URL: news:6k5ros$j2i$1@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au>:
>++ So it says:
>++ A good FSF-free manual for Perl. (There are non-FSF-free
>++ books, but these are no good because they are non-FSF-free).
>++
>
>Indeed. And even with your rewording, it still doesn't say anything
>about the 1000 pages of documentation that comes with Perl. It is
>still suggesting the only good manuals available for Perl are the
>books.
Gee, that sure sounds like a good reason to start a flame war.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 03:26:29 GMT
From: jobst@senna.eng.monash.edu.au (Jobst Schmalenbach)
Subject: Where is perldoc in WinNT or am I missing something?
Message-Id: <6k8415$70j$1@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>
Hi!
I was so used to do perldoc but I can seem to find it
in the NT distribution.
Any ideas?
regards
Jobst
--
| __, Jobst Schmalenbach, Monash Uni, Melbourne, Australia |
| _ _.--'-n_/ Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering |
| -(_)------(_)= email jobst@senna.eng.monash.edu.au 61-3-99055705 |
| http://senna.eng.monash.edu.au/~jobst 61-41-1611855 |
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 08:39:02 +1000
From: Jaime Metcher <metcher@spider.herston.uq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Where is perldoc in WinNT or am I missing something?
Message-Id: <3568A186.29A88683@spider.herston.uq.edu.au>
Hello
Using Sarathy's bindist: if installing to c:\perl, perldoc.bat will be
in c:\perl\bin. I seem to have c:\perl\bin on the path, but I'm not
sure if Sarathy's install did that or someone (or something!) else did.
--
Jaime Metcher
Jobst Schmalenbach wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I was so used to do perldoc but I can seem to find it
> in the NT distribution.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> regards
> Jobst
>
> --
> | __, Jobst Schmalenbach, Monash Uni, Melbourne, Australia |
> | _ _.--'-n_/ Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering |
> | -(_)------(_)= email jobst@senna.eng.monash.edu.au 61-3-99055705 |
> | http://senna.eng.monash.edu.au/~jobst 61-41-1611855 |
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1998 22:07:31 GMT
From: gsar@engin.umich.edu (Gurusamy Sarathy)
Subject: Re: Win32 NT Perl Wrapper
Message-Id: <6ka5n3$21t@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>
[ mailed and posted ]
In article <356592E0.CA9030E8@mail.uca.edu>,
Cameron Dorey <camerond@mail.uca.edu> wrote:
>Gurusamy Sarathy wrote:
>> As for the necessity of wrappers, consider the fact that file associations
>> are broken for redirections. Or that they're not available in
>> poor-mans-win32 (aka Windows95).
>
>Maybe I misunderstand you here and/or file associations, but in using
>your Win32 port under Win95, I "associated" .pl files with perl.exe just
>like you do in NT and can double-click on a script and get it to run, [...]
I wasn't talking about the ability to double-click a file to do something.
I was talking about the feature provided by the shell, whereby, entering a
filename on the command line launches that file with the "associated"
program. AFAIK, this can only be done with the cmd shell that comes with
Windows NT 4.0, using the "ftype" and "assoc" commands. (I think 4DOS also
has something similar.)
My point was that that facility in the cmd shell is flawed, because
it makes file redirections not work for scripts run in that fashion.
Enough silliness. :-) Here's a thought:
command-line vs mouse == spoken-word vs gesture == song vs pantomime
- Sarathy.
gsar@umich.edu
------------------------------
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 2710
**************************************
