Barry Margolin <······@genuity.net> writes:
> In article <···············@world.std.com>,
> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> wrote:
> >Barry Margolin <······@genuity.net> writes:
> >
> >> If I were an encyclopedia editor, I would expect that
> >> someone practicing their craft for several decades would be competent to
> >> write a one-paragraph description of something.
> >
> >I've said this before, but it's especially relevant again here:
> >
> >Programming languages are like political parties or religions.
> >
> >One doesn't let a Democrat extol the virtues of the Republican party, nor
> >vice versa.
>
> But a political scientist should be able to provide a summary of what each
> party represents.
Yes, but it's not going to be divorced from their point of view. Ask
a Stalinist-sympathizing history professor about Trotskyism:
"A Social-Democratic political program that came about when a
section of the participants of the October Revolution became
disenchanted with its results. Its main priciples are ..."
Or a Trotskyist-sympathizer about Stalinism:
"A political tendancy that arose from the bureaucratization of the
October Revolution. Its politics are characterized by ..."
Or a "non-political" one about Communism at all:
"A failed experiment in ..."
The definition a Trotskyist or a Stalinist give of their own tendancy
is going to be the most useful.
> You can get answers quickly. The hard part is determining whether the
> person who answered is really an expert.
Computer Science professors who *use* Common Lisp; vendors who make
it; McCarthy; researchers in industry who use it; people on the ANSI
committee.
> Regular participants in comp.lang.lisp know that Kent and Erik are
> very knowledgeable, but how would the encyclopedia expert know this
> a priori?
The above-listed people come with qualifications about anyone can see.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
In article <···············@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>,
Thomas F. Burdick <···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>Barry Margolin <······@genuity.net> writes:
>> But a political scientist should be able to provide a summary of what each
>> party represents.
>
>Yes, but it's not going to be divorced from their point of view.
No one will ever be divorced from their point of view. The only way to get
that is to ask someone who doesn't have a point of view, but they're
probably not knowledgeable about the subject matter so it's even worse.
>> You can get answers quickly. The hard part is determining whether the
>> person who answered is really an expert.
>
>Computer Science professors who *use* Common Lisp; vendors who make
>it; McCarthy; researchers in industry who use it; people on the ANSI
>committee.
They'll probably be biased in the other direction. I imagine if you were
to ask people on the C++ committee you'd get a description of how great it
is, but we know it's a load of crap.
>> Regular participants in comp.lang.lisp know that Kent and Erik are
>> very knowledgeable, but how would the encyclopedia expert know this
>> a priori?
>
>The above-listed people come with qualifications about anyone can see.
How is a first-time reader of the group supposed to recognize those people?
McCarthy very rarely posts here.
--
Barry Margolin, ······@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
Barry Margolin <······@genuity.net> writes:
> In article <···············@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>,
> Thomas F. Burdick <···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> >Barry Margolin <······@genuity.net> writes:
> >> But a political scientist should be able to provide a summary of what each
> >> party represents.
> >
> >Yes, but it's not going to be divorced from their point of view.
>
> No one will ever be divorced from their point of view. The only way to get
> that is to ask someone who doesn't have a point of view, but they're
> probably not knowledgeable about the subject matter so it's even worse.
What's with the creative quoting? You took the first sentance of my
paragraph and left all the support for it out. I wasn't making an
argument for radical objectivity, which is what you were
(artificially) arguing against.
> >> You can get answers quickly. The hard part is determining whether the
> >> person who answered is really an expert.
> >
> >Computer Science professors who *use* Common Lisp; vendors who make
> >it; McCarthy; researchers in industry who use it; people on the ANSI
> >committee.
>
> They'll probably be biased in the other direction. I imagine if you were
> to ask people on the C++ committee you'd get a description of how great it
> is, but we know it's a load of crap.
You can give a description of how great something is; or you can give
a description of something. The C++ committee, if they were trying to
write a non-biased description, would certainly fail at the non-biased
part, but would probably provide a useful description that would
reveal their technical and political goals and point of view.
> >> Regular participants in comp.lang.lisp know that Kent and Erik are
> >> very knowledgeable, but how would the encyclopedia expert know this
> >> a priori?
> >
> >The above-listed people come with qualifications about anyone can see.
[referring here to the list including the ANSI committee, McCarthy, etc]
> How is a first-time reader of the group supposed to recognize those people?
> McCarthy very rarely posts here.
We weren't talking about the first-time reader of this group, we were
talking about an encyclopedia editor. Anyhow, McCarthy is the only
one in there who needs introduction. "The inventor of Lisp back in
1950-whenever ..."
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
In article <···············@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>,
Thomas F. Burdick <···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>What's with the creative quoting? You took the first sentance of my
>paragraph and left all the support for it out. I wasn't making an
>argument for radical objectivity, which is what you were
>(artificially) arguing against.
I didn't intend my quoting to be misleading, or even realize I was doing
so. I believe in editing quotes down to just enough to provide context for
the response. The supporting text is not necessary for that.
>> How is a first-time reader of the group supposed to recognize those people?
>> McCarthy very rarely posts here.
>
>We weren't talking about the first-time reader of this group, we were
>talking about an encyclopedia editor. Anyhow, McCarthy is the only
>one in there who needs introduction. "The inventor of Lisp back in
>1950-whenever ..."
You (or someone whose argument you're supporting -- I haven't reviewed the
thread to see who said what) said that the editor could go onto the net and
in 10 minutes get a good description of Lisp. I assumed you meant going to
our newsgroup and posting a request for such a description. I think it's
very likely that the editor would be a first-time reader of the group.
They could also enter "Lisp" into a search engine, but trying to find what
they're looking for from that will be an extremely daunting task. Even
after filtering out all the pages about speech impediments there will be
thousands of pages just containing Lisp code (e.g. hundreds of people's
Emacs extensions).
If they find out first that McCarthy is the father of Lisp they could just
write to him asking for a description.
But if they have someone on their staff who is supposedly a computer
science expert, is it unreasonable for them to be trusted to be able to
provide all the trivial (i.e. one-paragraph) entries? If not, what's the
point of having people like that on staff? Is it really feasible to write
to experts for every little thing in the book?
--
Barry Margolin, ······@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
Barry Margolin <······@genuity.net> writes:
> >> Regular participants in comp.lang.lisp know that Kent and Erik are
> >> very knowledgeable, but how would the encyclopedia expert know this
> >> a priori?
> >
> >The above-listed people come with qualifications about anyone can see.
>
> How is a first-time reader of the group supposed to recognize those people?
> McCarthy very rarely posts here.
I would be very badly surprised if editors of an encyclopedia were to
use Usenet as a primary source of their information. It just is not
to be considered a source of definitive knowledge.
Standards published by national and international standardization
organizations, OTOH, are sources of definitive knowledge. So at a
bare minimum I'd expect a conscientious editor to look up current
standards on Lisp, and compare his definition with the definitions he
encounters. This will also give him pointers to the responsible
working groups (or sub-committees, or whatever the actual technical
entities of the respective organization are called), and so the
mandated contact points for further inquiries.
This is the minimum amount of trouble I'd expect from an editor of --
let's say -- a "computer" encyclopedia.
If that seems like too much trouble to go to for the encyclopedia in
question (which it may well might be), then I would suggest that the
term is not suitable for inclusion in their encyclopedia, and should
hence be dropped. I actually don't see why a generic encyclopedia
should have entries for particular programming languages, and can't
make do with a generic entry under "programming languages". But if it
does intend to include such entries, then it better make sure that
they are at least accurate. Employing some random CS post-graduate to
regurgitate the tales he heard about is not the way to compile
encyclopedias.
It is better to have no entry, than it is to present a misleading
entry.
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre R. Mai <····@acm.org> http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein
* Pierre R. Mai
| If that seems like too much trouble to go to for the encyclopedia in
| question (which it may well might be), then I would suggest that the term
| is not suitable for inclusion in their encyclopedia, and should hence be
| dropped.
Considering the large number of computer-releated entries in this volume,
a lot more than I have found in any other encyclopedia of comparable size
(I went ahead and bought it :), they have made a significant effort to
fill the need of third-millennium collegiate users. I think this bodes
well for an updated entry in a future edition, and I frankly do not quite
understand the depressingly defeatist attitude of those who think there
is no use -- a long journey starts with the first step, and if we can get
at least one modern reference work get it right, maybe others will follow
in the years to come.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers. -- Richard Hamming
> fill the need of third-millennium collegiate users. I think this bodes
> well for an updated entry in a future edition, and I frankly do not
quite
> understand the depressingly defeatist attitude of those who think there
> is no use -- a long journey starts with the first step, and if we can
get
> at least one modern reference work get it right, maybe others will
follow
> in the years to come.
I for one would like to see a larger entry for Lisp. Lisp is a historical
and very important development in computer programming. It is one of the
oldest languages and the people that have worked on it have influenced the
development of programming concepts and other computer languages. About 10
years ago there was a special issue of the ACM devoted to Lisp. Maybe
something can be taken from there? I no longer have my copy.
Wade
"Pierre R. Mai" <····@acm.org> wrote in message
···················@orion.bln.pmsf.de...
>
> I would be very badly surprised if editors of an encyclopedia were to
> use Usenet as a primary source of their information. It just is not
> to be considered a source of definitive knowledge.
>
I would be surprised too. Usenet is a great resource for in-depth details and
general research when combined with other sources. But there are certainly too
many opinions to get an accurate five-line summary of any topic you can
trust... or perhaps more specifically that you can *justify* trusting.
> hence be dropped. I actually don't see why a generic encyclopedia
> should have entries for particular programming languages, and can't
> make do with a generic entry under "programming languages". But if it
> does intend to include such entries, then it better make sure that
> they are at least accurate. Employing some random CS post-graduate to
> regurgitate the tales he heard about is not the way to compile
> encyclopedias.
>
I'm sure they employed a very reputable one. Like Barry said, that description
is a widely held belief. I don't "blame" them at all for echoing an "expert"
what else can they realistically do? I would blame them if someone or some
group submitted an easily verifiable correction and they ignored it. Even if
the group were gathered from a Usenet newsgroup! :)
Coby
--
(remove #\space "coby . beck @ opentechgroup . com")
* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| Like Barry said, that description is a widely held belief.
Regardless of how widely held the belief, describing _languages_ as
requring large memory space and executing programs slowly is very low
quality craftsmanship from a CS professional. Any CS professional worth
his salt knows that languages, and especially members of the Lisp family
past and present, are implemented in many different ways on differnt
kinds of computers that make such a blanket generalization embarrassing.
| I don't "blame" them at all for echoing an "expert" what else can they
| realistically do?
They could think a little bit about what it means for a language to take
up memory space. It is a very sloppy way to write what they had in mind,
even to someone who does not know that much about computers and languages.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers. -- Richard Hamming
From: Ed L Cashin
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <m31yjnsbkx.fsf@terry.uga.edu>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
...
> They could think a little bit about what it means for a language to take
> up memory space. It is a very sloppy way to write what they had in mind,
> even to someone who does not know that much about computers and languages.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. Certainly if there's an
inaccuracy in the encyclopedia then anyone at all can point it out to
the editors. If the inaccuracy is pointed out with precision,
clarity, and with some helpful references, they will have little
trouble verifying the correction themselves.
A good encyclopedia is likely to have good editors who would welcome
an accurate, well-presented correction, no matter who presents it.
--
--Ed Cashin integrit file-verification system:
·······@terry.uga.edu http://integrit.sourceforge.net/
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
* Ed L Cashin
| I don't know what all the fuss is about.
:
| A good encyclopedia is likely to have good editors who would welcome
| an accurate, well-presented correction, no matter who presents it.
One of the more interesting things that have been uncovered by this
discussion is that nobody has ever even _tried_ to communicate with the
editors of any existing reference works to update the entries on (Common)
Lisp from the 1960's version they mostly have today. Small wonder nobody
has published anything "better" -- those who could have helped them have
refrained from doing so. The "fuss" is about getting to the point where
the (Common) Lisp communicate can actually talk to these editors.
I have been reluctant to write something on my own and asked for some
guidance from those who have already tried and succeeded -- now I know
that they do not exist. This has frankly surprised me a bit -- there
have been enough complaints here about how _unfairly_ Lisp has been
treated, yet nobody have been angered enough by the unfairness to act.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers. -- Richard Hamming
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfwsnc33tam.fsf@world.std.com>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> One of the more interesting things that have been uncovered by this
> discussion is that nobody has ever even _tried_ to communicate with the
> editors of any existing reference works to update the entries on (Common)
> Lisp from the 1960's version they mostly have today. Small wonder nobody
> has published anything "better" -- those who could have helped them have
> refrained from doing so. The "fuss" is about getting to the point where
> the (Common) Lisp communicate can actually talk to these editors.
Well, I myself have never noticed up until this discussion.
I don't tend to read encyclopedias, frankly. The last time I used one
was in high school, in science fiction class, when I found one useful
to provide appropriate and convincing references to actual
documentable incidents of time travel. (I'm not kidding.) Sometime
subsequent to that, I decided they didn't do a lot of thorough
research and I made a note to not put as much trust in their content
as I had in earlier grades.
Nevertheless, the do exist and the fact that I feel I have generally
outgrown them and/or learned to distrust them is not a proof that they
are not something that should be kept an eye on.
As to the issue of getting to the point of communicating, I have assumed
that those carrying on the conversation here would reach a consensus about
what was required and would make the communication. If they do not, I
certainly will involve myself. I'm quite outraged, but I see no reason
to apply infinite force until we're sure simple force will not suffice.
SOMEONE should contact them, and if that doesn't work, we should discuss
the mode of failure (being ignored, explicitly denied credential, etc.)
and figure out how to proceed.
> I have been reluctant to write something on my own and asked for some
> guidance from those who have already tried and succeeded -- now I know
> that they do not exist. This has frankly surprised me a bit -- there
> have been enough complaints here about how _unfairly_ Lisp has been
> treated, yet nobody have been angered enough by the unfairness to act.
Pre- or post-discussion? I don't see the discussion as having been
terminated. Neither do I see very large harm being caused by delaying
a few days while we discuss things.
I'm not John McCarthy, nor even any more a J13 member, but if my
credential as an expert in having been Project Editor for ANSI Common
Lisp or ISO ISLISP would be helpful in approaching them, I would be
happy to use it. (I'm quite sure I could round up appropriate other
names to stand with me, if it comes to that.) But, for
strategic/learning reasons, it seems to me best to hold that until the
second round of contact, and to prefer the first round of contact to
merely apply "truth" as a credential and see how far that gets us.
This forum is not probably representative of the Lisp community as a
whole, having probably some biases in terms of the mix of people it
attracts, but nevertheless it is probably "sufficiently
representative" to serve as a sounding board to find out what kind of
details should go into an appropriate suggested entry. If, beyond what
this forum can provide, I can personally provide any additional help
to whoever wants to contact them, please send me email and I'll do so.
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> I don't tend to read encyclopedias, frankly.
Well, general-purpose encyclopedias are one thing (and I think this is
the thing being discussed); and domain-specific ones are another.
Sure, a domain-specific encyclopedia won't be able to capture encyclic
knowledge of a field, but it can be *quite* useful, nonetheless. For
example, my Larousse Gastronomique is a wonderful reference, and has
quite an astonishing bredth and depth of information (in its domain).
Of course, this is rather tangential, because we're not talking about
a domain-specific encyclopedia.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
> > I don't tend to read encyclopedias, frankly.
> Well, general-purpose encyclopedias are one thing (and I think this
> is the thing being discussed); and domain-specific ones are another.
> Sure, a domain-specific encyclopedia won't be able to capture
> encyclic knowledge of a field, but it can be *quite* useful,
> nonetheless. For example, my Larousse Gastronomique is a wonderful
> reference, and has quite an astonishing bredth and depth of
> information (in its domain).
You should make sure that Larousse Gastronomique has the appropriate
definition of Lisp too... :-)
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@cbbrowne.com")
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/spreadsheets.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #55. "The deformed mutants and odd-ball
psychotics will have their place in my Legions of Terror. However
before I send them out on important covert missions that require tact
and subtlety, I will first see if there is anyone else equally
qualified who would attract less attention."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Here is a first shot at a new definition,
Original
LISP - Powerful computer programming language designed for manipulating
lists of data or symbols rather than processing numerical data, used
extensively in artificial intelligence applications. It was designed
in the 1950s and early 1960s by a group headed by J. McCarthy at MIT.
Its name derives from "list processor". Radically different from such
other programming languages a ALGOL, C, C++, FORTRAN and Pascal, it
requires large memory space and is slow in executing programs.
New
Lisp - A computer programming language originally designed in the 1950s and
early 1960s by a group headed by J. McCarthy at MIT. Lisp is an acronym for
List Processing, the conceptual core for the original Lisp implementations.
Heavily adopted for AI (Artificial Intelligence) research and development in
the 1960s and 1970s its use prompted the development of many programming
techniques in wide use today. Many Lisp dialects were created into the
1980s and then consolidated into the Common Lisp ANSI standard of today.
The main features of Lisp are; uniform and extensible syntax; its
interactive development model (which differs from the compile-link-test
model of the other Algol like languages); and a rich set of data types.
Wade
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfwr8rmuzpt.fsf@world.std.com>
"Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com> writes:
> Here is a first shot at a new definition,
>
> Original
>
> LISP - Powerful computer programming language designed for manipulating
> lists of data or symbols rather than processing numerical data, used
> extensively in artificial intelligence applications. It was designed
> in the 1950s and early 1960s by a group headed by J. McCarthy at MIT.
> Its name derives from "list processor". Radically different from such
> other programming languages a ALGOL, C, C++, FORTRAN and Pascal, it
> requires large memory space and is slow in executing programs.
>
>
> New
>
> Lisp - A computer programming language originally
> designed in the 1950s and
> early 1960s by a group headed by J. McCarthy at MIT.
I believe the language was originally created in 1958 by John McCarthy.
The group followed. I'd separate these two things.
> Lisp is an acronym for
> List Processing, the conceptual core for the original Lisp implementations.
I don't know about conceptual core. I think a lot of things were.
Symbols and lambda expressions as well. "prominent feature" maybe.
Also, this needs to make clear that while it was formerly a central
data structure, it is now only one of many available data structures,
including a very sophisticated portfolio of array types, several built
built-in hash table types, and customer user-defined object classes.
> Heavily adopted for AI (Artificial Intelligence) research and development in
> the 1960s and 1970s its use prompted the development of many programming
> techniques in wide use today.
I claim (and I seem to be the only one who does, but I still stand by it)
that the really good effect of this is less the issue of the extralingual
AI techniques that programmers can use
and more the stress the AI community placed on the language itself
to become robust
in the face of dynamic change, to accomodate a variety of representational
strategies, to facilitate complex compositional effects such as higher
order functions, to accomodate both symbolic AND numerical programming
efficiently, to offer introspective capabilities, etc. Yes, Lisp enabled
AI but AI did a major and lasting service for Lisp that extends even to now
when Lisp is not used heavily for AI--it made Lisp robust enough that it's
the place people come back to when other languages blow up as "too complex".
> Many Lisp dialects were created into the
The word "into" here is awkward. Maybe "Creation of a large number of
competing Lisp dialects continued into ..." However, it is important to
emphasize that Common Lisp is not the only Lisp branch remaining. It is
really primarily the Maclisp variations were consolidated. I wouldn't
detail all of this here, but it's important to know. The Interlisp
dialect was essentially extinguished. (But on a per-seat count, depending
on how you count it, autolisp and gnu emacs lisp may have ten times as
many users as common lisp. Most doing only very casual one-liners in
init files, though.) The eulisp dialect still exists in some state. ISLISP
also still exists. ANSI CL is not to be neglected but it would be both
unfair for ANSI CL to be named by itself and also not helpful to Lisp's
cause. Mentioning that there are wide differences among dialects is perhaps
important to not having ANSI CL labeled by knowledge of one of these others,
but still those others have some constituency that we should not seek to
ignore.
> 1980s and then consolidated into the Common Lisp ANSI standard of today.
> The main features of Lisp are; uniform and extensible syntax; its
> interactive development model (which differs from the compile-link-test
> model of the other Algol like languages); and a rich set of data types.
Mention of a runtime compiler is critical when talking about interactive,
lest people think that interactive means interpreted. Other features of
Lisp worth a mention are: dynamic memory management ("garbage collection"),
a powerful iteration facility, a world-class
object-oriented programming facility that enables efficient yet fully dynamic
dispatch on one or more arguments, and an industry-leading
error-handling [I prefer condition-handling, but don't think people know
what that means so I say error-handling when talking to non-believers]
facility,
Changes:
Lisp - A group of computer programming languages originally designed in the
1950s and early 1960s by J. McCarthy of MIT. Lisp is an acronym for List
Processing, one of the conceptual cores of the original Lisps.
> > Heavily adopted for AI (Artificial Intelligence) research and
development in
> > the 1960s and 1970s its use prompted the development of many programming
> > techniques in wide use today.
>
> I claim (and I seem to be the only one who does, but I still stand by it)
> that the really good effect of this is less the issue of the extralingual
> AI techniques that programmers can use
> and more the stress the AI community placed on the language itself
> to become robust
> in the face of dynamic change, to accomodate a variety of representational
> strategies, to facilitate complex compositional effects such as higher
> order functions, to accomodate both symbolic AND numerical programming
> efficiently, to offer introspective capabilities, etc. Yes, Lisp enabled
> AI but AI did a major and lasting service for Lisp that extends even to
now
> when Lisp is not used heavily for AI--it made Lisp robust enough that it's
> the place people come back to when other languages blow up as "too
complex".
Then perhaps a sentence like:
Lisp was heavily adopted for AI (Artificial Intelligence) research and
development in the 1960s and 1970s. Lisp evolved quickly during this time
as new computational techniques were developed. Today these techniques are
commonly used in software development and are fully supported in the modern
Lisp dialects.
>
> > Many Lisp dialects were created into the
>
> The word "into" here is awkward. Maybe "Creation of a large number of
> competing Lisp dialects continued into ..." However, it is important to
> emphasize that Common Lisp is not the only Lisp branch remaining. It is
And then:
Diverse Lisp dialects are still in active use today. These include
standardized dialects (ANSI Common Lisp, IEEE Scheme and EuLisp) and
specialty versions (used for extending applications).
> > 1980s and then consolidated into the Common Lisp ANSI standard of today.
> > The main features of Lisp are; uniform and extensible syntax; its
> > interactive development model (which differs from the compile-link-test
> > model of the other Algol like languages); and a rich set of data types.
>
> Mention of a runtime compiler is critical when talking about interactive,
> lest people think that interactive means interpreted. Other features of
> Lisp worth a mention are: dynamic memory management ("garbage
collection"),
> a powerful iteration facility, a world-class
> object-oriented programming facility that enables efficient yet fully
dynamic
> dispatch on one or more arguments, and an industry-leading
> error-handling [I prefer condition-handling, but don't think people know
> what that means so I say error-handling when talking to non-believers]
> facility,
Maybe change that to:
The main features of Lisp are; uniform and extensible syntax; its
interactive (compiled and interpreted) development model (which differs from
the compile-link.test model of other Algol like languages); a rich set of
data types; dynamic memory management; support for imperative, functional
and object-oriented styles of coding; and industry-leading error handling.
Maybe at the end one could add:
Has a devoted and gifted group of users and proponents!
Wade
Everyone, feel free to edit or write your own versions.
In article <············@news3.cadvision.com>,
Wade Humeniuk <········@cadvision.com> wrote:
>The main features of Lisp are; uniform and extensible syntax; its
>interactive (compiled and interpreted) development model (which differs from
>the compile-link.test model of other Algol like languages); a rich set of
>data types; dynamic memory management; support for imperative, functional
>and object-oriented styles of coding; and industry-leading error handling.
Hmm, one of the most popular dialects of Lisp is Emacs Lisp, and I don't
consider it to have "industry-leading error handling". A generic Lisp
encyclopedia entry should probably not be so biased towards Common Lisp.
I'd expand on "rich set of data types" to mention the fact that they allow
very flexible references between data objects.
--
Barry Margolin, ······@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfwitcyryri.fsf@world.std.com>
Barry Margolin <······@genuity.net> writes:
>
> In article <············@news3.cadvision.com>,
> Wade Humeniuk <········@cadvision.com> wrote:
> >The main features of Lisp are; uniform and extensible syntax; its
> >interactive (compiled and interpreted) development model (which differs from
> >the compile-link.test model of other Algol like languages); a rich set of
> >data types; dynamic memory management; support for imperative, functional
> >and object-oriented styles of coding; and industry-leading error handling.
>
> Hmm, one of the most popular dialects of Lisp is Emacs Lisp, and I don't
> consider it to have "industry-leading error handling". A generic Lisp
> encyclopedia entry should probably not be so biased towards Common Lisp.
This is a fair observation, but perhaps not my first choice remedy.
It would be a shame to omit. It might be that a proper attribution
would have sentence or two about subtopics.
Common Lisp, described by American National Standard X3.226-1994,
is known for its extensive collection of pre-defined functions,
sophisticated object-oriented programming system and powerful
error-handling facilities. ISLISP, described by the international
standard ISO/IEC 13816:1997(E), is a much smaller dialect, only
about a tenth the size of Common Lisp, similar in nature, but not a
subset. Gnu Emacs Lisp is the underlying subset of Emacs, a widely
used text editor maintained by the Gnu open source community.
Scheme, a more distant relative of these others, yet one that many
still regard as part of the Lisp family of languages, is defined by
IEEE Standard 1178-1990, emphasizes a functional programming style,
a rigorous formal semantics, and a small core language, features
that make it especially for classroom teaching.
Mention of at least CL, ISLISP, and Scheme can be justified easily by
their status as standards. I decided here perhaps not to mention
Autolisp, in spite of its size of user base, since it's a proprietary
dialect. Emacs, on the other hand, being open source, perhaps
deserves mention in that light. Suggesting that there be entries for
ANSI, ISO, IEEE, "open source" and "Gnu Public License", if there are
not already, would seem like a good idea.
> I'd expand on "rich set of data types" to mention the fact that they allow
> very flexible references between data objects.
You're going to run straight up against the problem of each dialect
having different datatypes. I might say "While early Lisp was
primarily about list processing, modern Lisp dialects generally offer
a rich set of modern datatypes." To which I might add something to
the general effect of (needds work) "Many early Lisp
dialects also included only an interpreter, but modern Lisp dialects
offer both an interpreter and a compiler. The ability to flexibly connect
interpreted and copmiled code, and the ability to generate and load
compiled code while a Lisp image is running are important features of Lisp."
>>>>> "Kent" == Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
Kent> [...] Gnu Emacs Lisp is the underlying subset of Emacs, a
Kent> widely used text editor maintained by the Gnu open source
Kent> community. Scheme, a more [...]
One quibble: There is no "Gnu open source community". GNU is a Free
Software project. There is a difference. Note the all-caps seems to
be the preferred usage.
I think that if you are going to ask an encyclopedia to honor one
communities definition of itself, "equal justice" implies you should
honor another community's definition of itself as well.
Kent> [...] Suggesting that there be entries for ANSI, ISO, IEEE,
Kent> "open source" and "Gnu Public License", if there are not
Kent> already, would seem like a good idea.
One (other) quibble: it is the GNU General Public License.
--
Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other.
·······@aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible
profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
extremely unusual.' ''
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfwu1whd2j5.fsf@world.std.com>
Russell Senior <·······@aracnet.com> writes:
[I guess if we're going to quibble, we might as well get deep into it.]
> >>>>> "Kent" == Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
> Kent> [...] Gnu Emacs Lisp is the underlying subset of Emacs, a
> Kent> widely used text editor maintained by the Gnu open source
> Kent> community. Scheme, a more [...]
>
> One quibble: There is no "Gnu open source community". GNU is a Free
> Software project. There is a difference.
Yes, I suppose this is right.
(Btw, I truly abhor this abuse of the term free, though. Public
domain software is the only truly free software. The only distinction
between public domain software and free software is the set of senses
in which free software is not free. Not enough reason not to use the
term everyone else uses in an encyclopedia, I suppose, but it explains
my apparent unconscious mental desire to accidentally avoid use of
the more prevalent term.)
Also, I generally take free software to be a subset of open software.
Consequently, I would say it was "not as specific as it could be" rather
than, as you at least imply, incorrect.
> Note the all-caps seems to
> be the preferred usage.
Fair enough.
The issue of standardized case is not my strong suit. I've long said
that one day I will make a language called c and an operating system
called unix and claim it violates no one's trademark since a
fundametanl principle of C and Unix is that case matters and that
things in other cases are not confusable. To go after me, they'd have
to admit that perhaps case really isn't the powerful separator it
purports to be.
Or perhaps I've made my own Gnu project starting with what GNU offers,
the only difference being how I spell my name. I'm "free" to do that, no?
Sigh.
> I think that if you are going to ask an encyclopedia to honor one
> communities definition of itself, "equal justice" implies you should
> honor another community's definition of itself as well.
>
> Kent> [...] Suggesting that there be entries for ANSI, ISO, IEEE,
> Kent> "open source" and "Gnu Public License", if there are not
> Kent> already, would seem like a good idea.
>
> One (other) quibble: it is the GNU General Public License.
Yes. But then it should be ggpl. I think it's rude for it to take
the utterly generic term "general public licenses" for something so
specific. It implicitly to suggest that there should be no other
attempts by others to make a general public license. (And yes, I know
all about the GPL/LGPL distinction, but that should be GGPL/GLGPL.)
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> > One (other) quibble: it is the GNU General Public License.
>
> Yes. But then it should be ggpl. I think it's rude for it to take
> the utterly generic term "general public licenses" for something so
> specific. It implicitly to suggest that there should be no other
> attempts by others to make a general public license. (And yes, I know
> all about the GPL/LGPL distinction, but that should be GGPL/GLGPL.)
But they don't do that! They're really, annoyingly, good about
calling it the GNU GPL, even when it's in the middle of a bunch of GNU
stuff and leaving off the branding would be *completely* unambiguous.
The FSF is probably about as likely to say "GPL" as "Linux" :-)
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
> (Btw, I truly abhor this abuse of the term free, though. Public
> domain software is the only truly free software. The only distinction
> between public domain software and free software is the set of senses
> in which free software is not free. Not enough reason not to use the
> term everyone else uses in an encyclopedia, I suppose, but it explains
> my apparent unconscious mental desire to accidentally avoid use of
> the more prevalent term.)
I found the following interpretation of the term "free software" very
reasonable (even if the FSF does not see it in that way). Its author
is Linus Torvalds (probably) in a message to gnu.misc.discuss.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&frame=right&rnum=121&thl=1150799585,1150661270,1150348296,1150226271,1149127417,1149530119,1149469411,1149343053,1149329132,1149256539,1149241467,1149127166&seekm=ij8zijzwsr.zij%40localhost.localdomain#link126
Yours, Nicolas.
> * In message <··············@ortler.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de>
> * On the subject of "Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia"
> * Sent on 30 Oct 2001 11:32:49 +0100
> * Honorable Nicolas Neuss <·····@ortler.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
>
> I found the following interpretation of the term "free software" very
> reasonable (even if the FSF does not see it in that way). Its author
> is Linus Torvalds (probably) in a message to gnu.misc.discuss.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&frame=right&rnum=121&thl=1150799585,1150661270,1150348296,1150226271,1149127417,1149530119,1149469411,1149343053,1149329132,1149256539,1149241467,1149127166&seekm=ij8zijzwsr.zij%40localhost.localdomain#link126
I agree with Pierre Mai <····@acm.org> - this is misguided.
The concept of Freedom is applicable only to the entities with Free Will
- humans.
The whole idea of GNU GPL is summarized in its nickname - "copyleft".
GNU GPLed software is free from the copyright restrictions.
Its license makes sure that the copyright law protects it from the law
itself. I.e., the software under GPL exists in the world of its own -
the world without IP, where all software is PD (public domain).
This is how I understand the expression "Free Software" - software free
from the copyright law.
--- rant ---
The concept of copyright (C) is based on the concept of "IP"
(Intellectual Property) which is by no means obvious, at least not to
the US founding fathers (who specified that copyright can be granted
"for a limited term" -- which is now flagrantly neglected by the US
Congress; see <http://www.podval.org/~sds/copyrt.html>).
E.g., why should MS be able to restrict A's - who bought MS DOS - from
letting B copy it? The usual answer -- that this deprives MS from the
money B would have payed for MS DOS otherwise -- does not hold water
since B might have opted for DR DOS if he could not use A's copy of MS
DOS. Actually, in the 80-ies, MS did no mind that MS DOS was copied
illegally, since this increased their installed base, creating the basis
for the future monopoly. Only when MS Windows became a monopoly, the
choice really became between a legal copy of w95 and an illegal one, and
MS became much more concerned about copyright infringements.
I know that the above is open to criticism.
Nevertheless, I think it is a valid point of view.
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds)
Keep Jerusalem united! <http://www.onejerusalem.org/Petition.asp>
Read, think and remember! <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
Those who can laugh at themselves will never cease to be amused.
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> E.g., why should MS be able to restrict A's - who bought MS DOS - from
> letting B copy it? The usual answer -- that this deprives MS from the
> money B would have payed for MS DOS otherwise -- does not hold water
> since B might have opted for DR DOS if he could not use A's copy of MS
> DOS. Actually, in the 80-ies, MS did no mind that MS DOS was copied
> illegally, since this increased their installed base, creating the basis
> for the future monopoly. Only when MS Windows became a monopoly, the
> choice really became between a legal copy of w95 and an illegal one, and
> MS became much more concerned about copyright infringements.
>
I read somewhere that certain clothing brands consciously don't stress
too much about shoplifting, because they know that shoplifters
correlate fairly well with the people they want to be seen wearing
their (the brands') clothes. Sounds like the same trick.
--tim
* Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org>
| The usual answer -- that this deprives MS from the money B would have
| payed for MS DOS otherwise -- does not hold water since B might have
| opted for DR DOS if he could not use A's copy of MS DOS.
How does the fact that someone _might_ have chosen something else affect
the _actual_ losses when a particular choice was made? Suppose I steal a
car, travel somewhere, and return it before the owner needs it (so as to
eliminate the silly counter-argument that software can be copied at no
cost and without affecting the original). Can I now argue that this act
of theft must be acceptable because if I had had to pay for the car under
normal rules and circumstances, I might have taken public transportation?
In my view, the question is not at all what somebody does or does not
"lose" in some trivial monetary terms. The question is whether you have
the _right_ to do what you do. The owner of something laid down some
rules and principles for how to obtain (a copy of) that something, in a
society that has laid down rules and principles for what kinds of rules
and principles an owner can lay down for those who wish to obtain that
something. If you violate the owner's rules and principles for obtaining
that something, it is _wrong_ no matter what. If the owner has violated
the rules and principles of the society in which this takes place, you
_still_ have no right to violate the owner's conditions. The only thing
you should do in case you or your society does not approve of the rules
and principles of obtaining that something is to stay the hell away from
that owner and not even _want_ whatever he is trying to push. Owners of
something you might want who are too stupid to give you reasonable ways
to obtain it or who attempt to violate the conditions of your society or
even of your society as you would _like_ it to be, should be shunned and
_not_ be given signals that what they have to offer is worth obtaining.
However, since many people are unprincipled when faced with sufficient
temptation degree and are usually not aware of any ethical principles at
all unless they benefit from them, indeed _have_ no ethics if they feel
they have a reason to be morally outraged, such as if they feel unfairly
treated, which _would_ happen with a stupid owner who breaks community
expectations if you want to obtain their stuff, a sufficiently "clever"
owner with sufficient disrespect for his users, for society, and for the
rules and principles under which he is expected to operate, might make a
killing leading ignorant and not too bright youngsters into temptation by
making it _possible_ to break their rules and get away with it. Since
Bill Gates has proven to be one of those _presumedly_ intelligent people
(but read his "books") who think they are so smarter than everybody else
thay have no qualms at all flaunting the rules and principles of society,
he built an empire on the immoral and criminal tendencies of people who
were too weak to withstand temptation and too dumb to realize what he was
doing to their respect for the rights of owners of anything they want.
This is why there have always been so many bad people in the Microsoft
camp, stealing software, breaking copy protections, spreading viruses,
breaking standards and community recommendations, using C++, etc, and why
this lawless company has been found guilty of abusing its monopoly power.
There are probably few ethical and principled people left in the computer
industry because of Microsoft's success in being so unethical, but it did
not take much scrutiny of or thinking about the behavior of Microsoft
back in the early 1980s to see that the boss and the company were playing
by the rules of criminals and had no intention of becoming good citizens.
Indeed, both Bill Gates and the whole senior Microsoft management are and
have been so fantastically paranoid and competitive that that should give
_everybody_ an important clue to their plans. I always wonder why people
get defrauded when it takes no real effort to figure out that it cannot
be anything but fraud, but some people have figured it out and more: How
to _exploit_ those suckers. Bill Gates is one of those people. and He is
a damn good con man, but it only works on people who are willing to
dispense with ethics to get something they want -- immature people who
have not yet developed an understanding of what values they hold or how
to protect them, in this case teenage boys with no social clue and
probably very little to gain respect from others save through their
technical prowess with some advanced toy. Getting teenage boys to want
something and break some rules to get it is not particularly hard.
Exploiting it to the extent that Bill Gates and Microsoft has done is not
particularly brilliant, nor a stroke of genius, it only requires an
_absolute_ lack of respect for other people, and that kind of lack of
respect is a communicable disease that has infected too many people in
the computer industry -- even the Free Software proponents who think that
people inside and especially outside _their_ community can be exploited
for their ends, too: those who _demand_ that something that others have
created be available for free, lest they _steal_ it, who do not want to
use "non-free" software because they have a severely misguided idea of
what their values are, and who argue in favor of stealing using so bogus
arguments that they should be ashamed of themselves. In the end, we have
_not_ regained that ethical standing that is required to defeat the fraud
and his billion-dollar company, but infected another part of the software
industry that was very _principled_ in its objections and its ideas in
the past. Now that it has a much wider following, the lack of principled
followers must be expected, but it is still sad to see it happening.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
> * In message <················@naggum.net>
> * On the subject of "Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia"
> * Sent on Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:14:05 GMT
> * Honorable Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> * Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org>
> | The usual answer -- that this deprives MS from the money B would have
> | payed for MS DOS otherwise -- does not hold water since B might have
> | opted for DR DOS if he could not use A's copy of MS DOS.
>
> How does the fact that someone _might_ have chosen something else
> affect the _actual_ losses when a particular choice was made?
> Suppose I steal a car, travel somewhere, and return it before the
> owner needs it (so as to eliminate the silly counter-argument that
> software can be copied at no cost and without affecting the
> original). Can I now argue that this act of theft must be
> acceptable because if I had had to pay for the car under normal
> rules and circumstances, I might have taken public transportation?
This is not what I was saying.
If you own the car, you set the rules.
> In my view, the question is not at all what somebody does or does
> not "lose" in some trivial monetary terms. The question is whether
> you have the _right_ to do what you do. The owner of something laid
> down some rules and principles for how to obtain (a copy of) that
> something, in a society that has laid down rules and principles for
> what kinds of rules and principles an owner can lay down for those
> who wish to obtain that something. If you violate the owner's rules
> and principles for obtaining that something, it is _wrong_ no matter
> what. If the owner has violated the rules and principles of the
> society in which this takes place, you _still_ have no right to
> violate the owner's conditions.
It is not clear what is that "something" which is "owned", whether it is
possible to "own" is, and what it means to "own" it.
IP (intellectual property) is a weird concept, and not everyone agrees
on what it is and whether it has a right to exist at all &c. (My DOS
argument was one of the common arguments in favor of the concept.)
It is not at all clear that it is possible to "own an idea".
In fact, you will find that in the first copyright cases the authorities
declaring the author's exclusive right to the creation were defensive
(wrt the obvious argument that copyright limits the rights of the
individuals) and stressed the time limits on copyright as well as the
necessity to protect the author's income.
Both of these issues (time limits and author's income) parameters are
now discarded (US extends copyright duration by 5 years every 5 years,
so nothing created after 1923 will go into PD; since copyright can be
owned by a corporation, authorship has now nothing to do with
copyright) because of the pecuniary issues of corporate profits.
Nevertheless, the bottom line is that IP is _not_ the same kind of
property as a car or a computer, at least not legally. Suffice it to
say that there is a concept of PD and (theoretically) copyright
expiration.
IANAL
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds)
Keep Jerusalem united! <http://www.onejerusalem.org/Petition.asp>
Read, think and remember! <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
Computer are like air conditioners: they don't work with open windows!
* Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org>
| It is not at all clear that it is possible to "own an idea".
Intellectual property does not refer to ideas, only their _expression_.
Nobody has _ever_ in the history of intellectual property made any claim
to own an _idea_. For instance, patents, which prevent an independent
invention from being exploited commercially, does _not_ prevent anyone
from writing books on the ideas underlying the invention, nor from using
it to create new inventions. Quite the contrary, that is the purpose of
patents -- to make them open and known -- that is what "patent" means.
The purpose of granting commercial rights to copyright holders (apart
from any moral rights) is also to ensure that people are encouraged to
publish their ideas. Society benefits greatly from _not_ letting people
"own" ideas, and obviously so. I find it very strange that those who
talk about the ill effects of intellectual property do not care enough to
know that it expressly does not deal with "owning ideas". As far as the
intellectual property laws are concerned, owning an idea is not possible.
| Nevertheless, the bottom line is that IP is _not_ the same kind of
| property as a car or a computer, at least not legally.
I hope two books I have read recently can help those who have an urge to
be opinionated on the issue of intellectual property get a better grip on
what they are talking about:
Paul Goldstein
International Copyright : Principles, Law, and Practice
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195128850
David R. Koepsell
The Ontology of Cyberspace : Philosophy, Law, and the
Future of Intellectual Property
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812694236
Incidentally, intellectual property is considered hard to understand. I
do not understand why, but then I have always been looking at it from the
point of view of the creator and the obvious right he has to control the
distribution of his work -- ultimately by simply withholding it -- not
the consumer who generally has nothing to offer the creator but money,
and the requirements that a decent society can put on the consumer such
that those who can create something, _anything_ of value, are encouraged
to do so, precisely for the benefit of those consumers, but also such
that other creators can build on what has gone before them instead of
having to develop everything from first principles themselves. If the
consumers gets "rights" to the works of the creators, the only effect is
to seriously limit the incentives of creators to do significant work, and
the only new creations will be trivial consumer modifications that are
worth what the consumers can get in return for their effort. Most of
those who are both creator and consumer will not figure this out until
they can no longer get paid for their creative work and can no longer buy
(copies of) any new creative works that would have cost so much to create
that millions of consumers must pay for it, and the former consequence
will happen to small-time creators a long before the latter affects the
big-time entertainment industry, but it will dry out from the bottom up:
It is already damn hard to _start_ making money in entertainment and it
will not get easier when nothing but the largest outfits make money, and
that process of favoring big business will come about because people do
not understand how today's intellectual property laws protect the small
creators against the big ones. I believe the only reason consumers want
control over the published works of creators is simple greed, but greed
pays off only in the short run, killing off the source of the value that
greedy people only _want_.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org>
> | It is not at all clear that it is possible to "own an idea".
> Intellectual property does not refer to ideas, only their
> _expression_. Nobody has _ever_ in the history of intellectual
> property made any claim to own an _idea_. For instance, patents,
> which prevent an independent invention from being exploited
> commercially, does _not_ prevent anyone from writing books on the
> ideas underlying the invention, nor from using it to create new
> inventions. Quite the contrary, that is the purpose of patents --
> to make them open and known -- that is what "patent" means.
The recent sets of lawsuits surrounding the US "Digital Millenium
Copyright Act," as well as the DVD/CSS activities, which, if memory
serves, included the arrest of a Norwegian minor, under eminently
invalid charges, would seem to suggest otherwise.
The folks of the US MPAA and RIAA seem to be indicating that they wish
to claim to own all sorts of ideas.
If you make, and publish, anything that generally seems to resemble
Mickey Mouse, you're liable to find some folks from The Disney Company
submitting some legal papers suggesting that you Cease And Desist...
> The purpose of granting commercial rights to copyright holders
> (apart from any moral rights) is also to ensure that people are
> encouraged to publish their ideas. Society benefits greatly from
> _not_ letting people "own" ideas, and obviously so. I find it very
> strange that those who talk about the ill effects of intellectual
> property do not care enough to know that it expressly does not deal
> with "owning ideas". As far as the intellectual property laws are
> concerned, owning an idea is not possible.
That may be how it appears on your "side of the pond;" while that was
once supposed to be the purpose of copyright, trademark, and patent
laws, there seems to be a substantial set of industries lobbying for
things rather closer to "owning ideas."
--
(concatenate 'string "chris" ·@cbbrowne.com")
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
Don't panic.
-- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
* Christopher Browne <········@acm.org>
| The recent sets of lawsuits surrounding the US "Digital Millenium
| Copyright Act," as well as the DVD/CSS activities, which, if memory
| serves, included the arrest of a Norwegian minor, under eminently
| invalid charges, would seem to suggest otherwise.
Really? These lawsuits seem to suggest that intellectual property refers
to ideas, not their expression? I think you have conflated the concept
of an idea with its expression. I have noticed that some people do this,
and that it is generally impossible to convince them to separate the two.
| The folks of the US MPAA and RIAA seem to be indicating that they wish to
| claim to own all sorts of ideas.
Really? From my point of view, they merely wish to own the expression of
the ideas expressed by their members. They also seem to think that you
do not actually own a copy of the information on the physical medium you
have bought, meaning that you only have the right to perform the piece,
not reproduce it. This is a legitimate legal view, and they _do_ have
the right to make such limitations on your purchase of the medium. What
we have here is a pretty simple case of voluntary licenses and contracts,
which are protected as such in all reasonable countries. They cannot,
however, claim any control over any ideas you get while you experience a
performance. That would be the consequence of the ability to "own ideas".
| If you make, and publish, anything that generally seems to resemble
| Mickey Mouse, you're liable to find some folks from The Disney Company
| submitting some legal papers suggesting that you Cease And Desist...
And this is relevant to owning ideas how? Sheesh.
| That may be how it appears on your "side of the pond;" while that was
| once supposed to be the purpose of copyright, trademark, and patent
| laws, there seems to be a substantial set of industries lobbying for
| things rather closer to "owning ideas."
It seems that some people arrive at so strong opinions about "owning
ideas" (which is so silly that you would have to think other people are
idiots to believe they hold such a view -- it is somewhat like accusing
people of believing they are infallible) because they fail to distinguish
between an expression of an idea and the idea itself. If you express the
"same idea" (for some version of the "equal" operator :) independently,
your independent expression is, in fact, independent. If you think that
the idea _is_ its expression, there is no way to make an independent
version of the "same idea", because it would be the same _expression_.
I _really_ think those who believe that others want to "own ideas" need
to read up on copyright law and talk to some people who are working for
"the other side". It should be as simple as seeking expert counsel to
find out how your _own_ ideas are protected under prevailing law, and
that process should dispell most of the silly confusions. It appears to
me that those who fail to grasp intellectual property issues have never
had an original idea worth protecting and so have never thought about how
to protect them. As soon as one has an idea that one would like to make
money off of, or even base one's claim to fame on, these issues arise,
and it is pretty stupid _not_ to protect one's work in an environment
where people copy everything and think they have a _right_ to copy it, so
as soon as you do something independently, you need to study these things
carefully. Those who have not, and still talk about copyright issues,
appear to me be consumers of other people's idea, only, and only want to
get their hands on more of other people's work for less money. I fail to
see how this can be the basis for a particularly noble cause.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
> * In message <················@naggum.net>
> * On the subject of "Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia"
> * Sent on Wed, 31 Oct 2001 04:26:20 GMT
> * Honorable Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> * Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org>
> | It is not at all clear that it is possible to "own an idea".
>
> Intellectual property does not refer to ideas, only their _expression_.
I was sloppy. Sorry. I should have said:
It is not at all clear that it is possible to "own an expression of an idea".
Let me repeat: copyright laws restrict the an individual's freedom to,
e.g., xerox a whole book. Is not clear why the society can do that.
When A takes a jacket from B, we do have a conflict - two people cannot
use the same jacket at the same time, so we do establish the "property
laws" and we say that if a jacket "belongs" to B, then A cannot take it
from B.
When A xeroxes a book written by B, there is no obvious conflict
(see my first message in the thread with the DOS example).
Nevertheless, we establish the copyright laws to encourage authors.
IMO, these laws has been much abused by the corporate copyright holders
- to the detriment of the authors and the public alike.
[All this is based on the premise that the Source of the law is the
People -- thus the laws reflect what people think and might change
accordingly if the public opinion changes.
There are other legal systems around, but you appear to subscribe to
this view, so I adopt it for the sake of this discussion.]
> today's intellectual property laws protect the small
> creators against the big ones
I don't think this is true now.
http://www.musicisum.com/manifesto.shtml
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp.html
I don't think that a corporation should be able to become a copyright
holder. I don't think that the copyright term should be unlimited, as
it (effectively) is now.
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds)
Keep Jerusalem united! <http://www.onejerusalem.org/Petition.asp>
Read, think and remember! <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
The software said it requires Windows 3.1 or better, so I installed Linux.
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> I don't think this is true now.
> http://www.musicisum.com/manifesto.shtml
The site seems to be down...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ·············@" "sirhc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/nonrdbms.html
Time is the best teacher; Unfortunately it kills all its students.
* Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org>
| Let me repeat: copyright laws restrict the an individual's freedom to,
| e.g., xerox a whole book. Is not clear why the society can do that.
No, copyright law does not restrict that. It restricts what the owner
can require that you not do with the work you have a copy of. (It also
provides som useful defaults for what you cannot do.) This is a somewhat
subtle difference, but contract prevails over law when the law delineates
what kinds of contracts the courts should uphold. Surprisingly, members
of the Berne Convention all agree to this, even if their legal systems
vary considerably.
If you do not give the book to anyone, but, say, use it instead of the
original because you do not want to wear out the original, you are within
your rights, even if this can be construed as an instance of your silly
argument abaout monetary losses. Private use and fair use are still very
important in U.S. copyright law. These are the areas primarily under
attack, because they force the publisher to accept certain restrictions
on what they can require in the contracat entered with the purchaser of a
copy of a work.
| When A takes a jacket from B, we do have a conflict - two people cannot
| use the same jacket at the same time, so we do establish the "property
| laws" and we say that if a jacket "belongs" to B, then A cannot take it
| from B.
This is a wonderful red herring, and amazingly powerful in its ability
confuse people who do not understand the normal _property_ rights, either.
I tried to forestall against this silliness by having the stolen car in
my example returned before the owner needed it, but lo and behold! that
did not register with those who want to use any bogus example to fight a
copyright law that does not exist.
What is most interesting about this stupid example is that it is the
_thief's_ view of property, not the owner's view. The "argument" is
actually saying "If you won't notice that I have stolen it, why do you
care that I did?". Most criminal minds believe that it is not illegal if
they simply avoid getting caught -- it is OK if they get away with it.
Most owners have a significantly different take on this issue, and that
extends to "intangible goods".
| When A xeroxes a book written by B, there is no obvious conflict (see my
| first message in the thread with the DOS example).
I _thorougly_ debunked your DOS example, but you just repeat it, without
any attempt to defend it. Such arrogance is typical of the ignorant who
do not even understand that they have been presented a counter-argument,
but if you discuss copyright issues, you better know what you talk about.
The obvious conflict is that the _owner_ of the book's contents did make
a condition on what you could do with it which you _agreed_ to when you
bought the book (or got it from someone who did -- I do presume that you
did not steal if from someone you thought would not miss it), and now you
go ahead and act in violation of that agreement (presuming you go ahead
and give away or worse, sell, the copy to someone else). The owner gave
you no _right_ to do this. _That_ is the conflict. That conflict is
completely unchanged whether you can get away with it or not, whether you
can make a copy without stealing the original or not, etc.
Yours is political propaganda against copyright issues you fail to grasp
in the misguided assumption that other peole who also do not understand
copyright issues will believe your version of them, is it not? Well, the
law does not work that way even if it works wonders to confuse people.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just because a bunch of people agree
to a really stupid interpretation that no expert in the field agrees to
and which the final authority on legal issues, the courts, will laugh at,
does not mean that the world is helped by such stupid propaganda.
You keep making a number of statements that are _trivially_ factually
wrong and you are so sloppy with your terminology that it is impossible
to know what you will come back and claim you meant when your sloppiness
is taken seriously (because we have no other choice) and corrected, yet
still think you have any useful credibility in this issue. I have no
idea _what_ you have so strong opinions about, but it is definitely _not_
the copyright laws of _any_ of the Berne Convention member states. Now,
go do your homework, damnit! Legal issues are not a child's game. The
law is not some open source document you can go in and alter if you find
a "bug" in it.
| Nevertheless, we establish the copyright laws to encourage authors. IMO,
| these laws has been much abused by the corporate copyright holders - to
| the detriment of the authors and the public alike.
Understand them first, then come back with your opinion about them.
| [All this is based on the premise that the Source of the law is the
| People -- thus the laws reflect what people think and might change
| accordingly if the public opinion changes.
Some countries have constitutions that _fortunately_ limit the power of
the "people" to make changes.
| There are other legal systems around, but you appear to subscribe to
| this view, so I adopt it for the sake of this discussion.]
I have not given you reason to believe I subscribe in any particular
organization of society or legal systems. The fact that I accept the
prevailing laws as just that has the very simple reason that acting on
doing otherwise is the very hallmark of a criminal. People who break the
law in the hope that whatever they did will sometime be legal are only
stupid, _not_ clever social reformers. If _you_ cannot work to change a
law while you respect its prevailing interpretation, do not expect anyone
who "disagrees" with you to respect your much improved (I'm sure) law
while _they_ work to change it back, or to something else.
If you want to know, I consider the "people" to be utterly _inept_ at
formulating laws -- they can barely be trusted to follow it and you have
no way to know whether the "people" who vote for a change are criminals
or law-abiding citizens. The best the voting "people" can do is hope to
be able to choose from a few competent people who _are_ able to formulate
reasonbly good laws. For this to work well, you need a constitution that
limits the ineptitude of politicians, too. The law must above all be
_stable_ because a law that is changed by the "people" to fit whatever
they believe in from election to election offers no more protection than
the complete absence of law. People, being generally concerned more with
lining their own pockets than ensuring that everybody can prosper equally,
offer a negative force in practical politics, because transcending the
"interests" of self-serving special interest groups is the only _really_
hard part in being a politician.
| > today's intellectual property laws protect the small creators against
| > the big ones
|
| I don't think this is true now.
I know that you are seriously confused about what copyright law today is
all about, so your conclusions have no credibility or merit whatsoever.
I do not claim to fully understand this issue, which is why I point to
some sources that I are _way_ more authoritative than some GNU freak with
a vested interest in confusing people. I do, however, know very well
what copyright is _not_, and most of the silliness that its attackers
think it is, is unfortunately _completely_ bogus.
| I don't think that a corporation should be able to become a copyright
| holder. I don't think that the copyright term should be unlimited, as it
| (effectively) is now.
I don't think you should post more on this before you have read Paul
Goldstein's excellent book, International Copyright, and come back when
you have seen his very good exposition of the _principles_ of copyright
that are honored in spirit yet vary in the letter of their laws by all of
the countries who have joined the Berne Convention. It is really a very
good book. If you cannot be bothered to read such an important book,
please shut up about copyright issues. This is too important to leave to
opinionated ignorants with a political agenda and especially those who
see these things only from the criminal's point of view. "I want, so I
take" is simply a version of "might is right", which is what some of you
are fighting _against_ when it comes to "big business". It is no more
acceptable on a small scale than on a large scale.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
Nicolas Neuss <·····@ortler.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
> I found the following interpretation of the term "free software" very
> reasonable (even if the FSF does not see it in that way). Its author
> is Linus Torvalds (probably) in a message to gnu.misc.discuss.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&frame=right&rnum=121&thl=1150799585,1150661270,1150348296,1150226271,1149127417,1149530119,1149469411,1149343053,1149329132,1149256539,1149241467,1149127166&seekm=ij8zijzwsr.zij%40localhost.localdomain#link126
I don't. As Torvalds rightly notes, the usage of free/freedom, as
meaning the freedom from outside determination through the grant of
certain inalienable rights (allusion intended), has traditionally
_not_ been applied to inanimate objects[1]. There is a reason for that,
and that is the absence of self-consciousness, and thereby the absence
of a will that could result in self-determination. Hence software
will remain non-self-determined, until it reaches a certain level of
self-cosciousness, etc. And if/when that happens, it would be equally
wrong for the FSF to try to determine the rights of this newly
self-conscious software, as it would be for anyone else, except the
software in question.
True freedom cannot ever be granted, since freedom means the freedom
from outside determination, it has to be "taken", by drawing up your
own rules under which you deign to restrict yourself. Freedom is
determination of your self by yourself (or others that _you_ have
delegated that authority too, like e.g. peer groups, governments,
etc.)
So the FSF giving "freedom" to an inanimate object is just as much an
abuse of the word freedom as any other. It needs a subject to
experience and live freedom, and until software communicates its
subjective will in this matter, I don't see why GPL'd software should
be considered any more free than any other software.
Of course I'm quite aware of the epistemological problems in
determining whether something has reached a "sufficient" level of
"subjectness", but that is IMHO beside the point, since I don't see
any author of free-software calling for the banishment of power-off
buttons either.
But I don't think that Torvalds interpretation really represents the
position of the FSF, or at least that of Richard Stallman. In many
texts he has been talking explicitly about the freedom of people, not
the freedom of the software qua subject. The freedom to share
improvements for example, the freedom to give those to his friends,
etc. All of those freedoms only make sense if we consider the freedom
of the people in question, not the freedom of the software-subject.
Regs, Pierre.
Footnotes:
[1] Even if we for example say "freedom of commerce", or "free trade"
it is not the freedom of the inanimate objects "commerce" and
"trade" that we really mean, it is the freedom of people to
engage in commerce and trade that is meant. Freedom is always
tied to a subject which can experience and exercise the freedom
in question. Even if modern legal theory ascribes subjective
qualities to inanimate legal entities (e.g. LLCs), it is really
humans that fill the inanimate entity with its will, i.e. it is
the organs of that entity that determine its will.
--
Pierre R. Mai <····@acm.org> http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein
"Pierre R. Mai" <····@acm.org> writes:
> Nicolas Neuss <·····@ortler.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
>
> > I found the following interpretation of the term "free software" very
> > reasonable (even if the FSF does not see it in that way). Its author
> > is Linus Torvalds (probably) in a message to gnu.misc.discuss.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&frame=right&rnum=121&thl=1150799585,1150661270,1150348296,1150226271,1149127417,1149530119,1149469411,1149343053,1149329132,1149256539,1149241467,1149127166&seekm=ij8zijzwsr.zij%40localhost.localdomain#link126
>
> I don't. As Torvalds rightly notes, the usage of free/freedom, as
> meaning the freedom from outside determination through the grant of
> certain inalienable rights (allusion intended), has traditionally
> _not_ been applied to inanimate objects[1]. There is a reason for that,
> and that is the absence of self-consciousness, and thereby the absence
> of a will that could result in self-determination. Hence software
> will remain non-self-determined, until it reaches a certain level of
> self-cosciousness, etc. And if/when that happens, it would be equally
> wrong for the FSF to try to determine the rights of this newly
> self-conscious software, as it would be for anyone else, except the
> software in question.
You're right, this is not a traditional kind of freedom. But I think
it catches the idea of the GPL quite well. Especially for works of
art (which software is), it is sometimes a pity not to have certain
"human rights", e.g. consider the case of the Taliban destroying
monuments, or Symbolics imprisoning Macsyma.
Yours, Nicolas.
>>>>> "Kent" == Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
Russell> One (other) quibble: it is the GNU General Public License.
Kent> Yes. But then it should be ggpl. I think it's rude for it to
Kent> take the utterly generic term "general public licenses" for
Kent> something so specific.
Someone could make the same objection about "Common" in "Common Lisp".
Note that I am not objecting, I am merely noting the parallel so a
long-winded defense is not necessary for me.
I'll repeat for emphasis the one paragraph of my article that you
chose not to respond to:
I think that if you are going to ask an encyclopedia to honor one
communities definition of itself, "equal justice" implies you should
honor another community's definition of itself as well.
--
Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other.
·······@aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible
profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
extremely unusual.' ''
From: Ed L Cashin
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <m38zds2z7a.fsf@terry.uga.edu>
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
...
> (Btw, I truly abhor this abuse of the term free, though. Public
> domain software is the only truly free software.
I disagree: it's free (like "free speech") if no one is restricting
anyone's rights. (Please bear with me--I realize that the GPL denies
people the right to take away other peoples' rights.)
If I release software without restricting anyone's rights to use,
study, modify, and redistribute the software, so far so good ...
Now, if MegaBucks, Inc., comes along and takes my free software, puts
it in their product, and releases it *with* restrictions on the users'
rights to study, modify, etc., then the software isn't free anymore
(as released by MegaBucks).
I know that some people here have argued that only entities with free
will can be free, but please consider what "free software" means from
the standpoint of the users. It's software that doesn't restrict
their rights. (Except one, namely their ability to restrict others'
rights with regard to the software.)
If MegaBucks has done that to my public domain software, how is the
software more free than if I had said, "and by the way, you don't have
the right to take these rights away from other people," when the only
possible purpose of the omission of that stipulation is for the
software to become less free?
The right to take away the rights of others is special, in that its
exercise always makes the software less free. For that reason, this
is the one right that, in being denied, increases the overall freedom
of *all* the users of any given piece of software.
--
--Ed Cashin integrit file-verification system:
·······@terry.uga.edu http://integrit.sourceforge.net/
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfwofmogyfx.fsf@world.std.com>
Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu> writes:
> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
> ...
> > (Btw, I truly abhor this abuse of the term free, though. Public
> > domain software is the only truly free software.
>
> I disagree: it's free (like "free speech") if no one is restricting
> anyone's rights. (Please bear with me--I realize that the GPL denies
> people the right to take away other peoples' rights.)
>
> If I release software without restricting anyone's rights to use,
> study, modify, and redistribute the software, so far so good ...
>
> Now, if MegaBucks, Inc., comes along and takes my free software, puts
> it in their product, and releases it *with* restrictions on the users'
> rights to study, modify, etc., then the software isn't free anymore
> (as released by MegaBucks).
Sorry, I don't buy it.
You're basically restricting things I can do with it because they are not
compatible with your personal view.
In "free speech" this would be analogous to saying "you can do anything you
want with speech, but you must not advocate that speech not be free". That
would not be free speech.
Further, if MegaBucks, Inc. makes something from your code, then there are
two components to it: the parts they made (and they should be entitled to
dictate the use of that, since it's theirs, not yours) and the parts you made
(and they should be entitled to use that however they wanted if it were free;
only if you made it not really truly free could you control how they used it).
> The right to take away the rights of others is special, in that its
> exercise always makes the software less free.
No, it doesn't. Free software is public domain software. Anything less
is not free, it is restricted. The purpose of free software is not to
assure freedom of the original code, it is to coerce the use of that code.
If code is TRULY free, nothing can restrict its use--the code continues to
be useable by anyone who wants to use it.
From: Ed L Cashin
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <m38zdreoxu.fsf@terry.uga.edu>
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu> writes:
>
> > Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> >
> > ...
> > > (Btw, I truly abhor this abuse of the term free, though. Public
> > > domain software is the only truly free software.
> >
> > I disagree: it's free (like "free speech") if no one is restricting
> > anyone's rights. (Please bear with me--I realize that the GPL denies
> > people the right to take away other peoples' rights.)
> >
> > If I release software without restricting anyone's rights to use,
> > study, modify, and redistribute the software, so far so good ...
> >
> > Now, if MegaBucks, Inc., comes along and takes my free software, puts
> > it in their product, and releases it *with* restrictions on the users'
> > rights to study, modify, etc., then the software isn't free anymore
> > (as released by MegaBucks).
>
> Sorry, I don't buy it.
I don't see why not. You did not address my argument but rather
restated it with the important part missing. I'll rephrase it:
* the only way for a given piece of code to always be usable,
modifyable, studiable, and redistributable is this:
* restrict other people's ability to declare that the code is NOT
usable, modifiable, studiable, and redistributable.
> You're basically restricting things I can do with it because they are not
> compatible with your personal view.
The only such restriction is the one restriction that is absolutely
necessary in order for the code in question to remain available for
everyone to use, modify, etc. Namely, that no one can restrict anyone
else's rights.
The reason that's fair is that it's the perogative of the copyright
holder to make the software available under any terms they find
appropriate. If the copyright holder wants to be sure that their
restrictions are never placed on anyone's ability to use, modify,
etc., the software, then there is only one way to ensure that:
stipulate explicitly that no one may restrict anyone else's rights to
use, modify, etc., the software.
> In "free speech" this would be analogous to saying "you can do
> anything you want with speech, but you must not advocate that speech
> not be free". That would not be free speech.
That's not a valid comparison. A license applies to a certain piece
of software, not to software in general. Your analogy applies to
speech in general.
And certainly, using the GNU GPL doesn't equate to a proclamation that
no one may use any other licenses.
...
> The purpose of free software is not to assure freedom of the
> original code, it is to coerce the use of that code. If code is
> TRULY free, nothing can restrict its use--the code continues to be
> useable by anyone who wants to use it.
You mean the original release of the code remains in the public
domain. The part you're not attending to, though, is that public
domain code can be modified and redistributed in products that have
quite restrictive licenses.
If the author of the original code is OK with that, so be it -- I'm
not saying it's wrong at all. But it is important to acknowledge that
when that happens, the same code is making a new appearance in the
world as restricted software.
It's true that the public domain version may (or may not) still be
available, but it is easy to see that the rights of the users of the
version with the restrictive license have less freedom. So I disagree
that it's an abuse of the word free to say that in this situation the
code is "less free".
--
--Ed Cashin integrit file-verification system:
·······@terry.uga.edu http://integrit.sourceforge.net/
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfwhesf4rkp.fsf@world.std.com>
Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu> writes:
> I'll rephrase it:
>
> * the only way for a given piece of code to always be usable,
> modifyable, studiable, and redistributable is this:
The it's not always usable because I cannot use it.
Let me rephrase:
The only way to offer freedom is to restrict the freedom to
show counterexamples.
> * restrict other people's ability to declare that the code is NOT
> usable, modifiable, studiable, and redistributable.
No one is restricting the ability to declare "the code" (the stuff YOU wrote)
is NOT usable, modifiable, studiable, or redistributable. Your code is
still available and all of those things. What they are restricting is the
use of their own newly created configuration. It's legal for you to do that,
but do not confuse that legality with "freedom". You are restricting use
of the code YOU provide. Even if the code were public domain, its inclusion
in a proprietary work would not prohibit you from stripping every public domain
line out of the code and reusing every line of it. You just can't use the
code in the new configuration because someone has added stuff that uses your
free code in a way that requires additional support that you did not write
and do not contorl. Make no mistake: this is simply a cultural war of
control, and the side of "freedom" is using coercion as a tool.
From: Ed L Cashin
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <m3snbzd5el.fsf@terry.uga.edu>
Sorry for the tone of my last email. I realized too late that it
sounded arrogant and patronizing.
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu> writes:
>
> > I'll rephrase it:
> >
> > * the only way for a given piece of code to always be usable,
> > modifyable, studiable, and redistributable is this:
>
> The it's not always usable because I cannot use it.
I don't understand that syntax. What do you mean by use? I'm
guessing you mean, "include it in a piece of software with a
restrictive license?" since you can use software that's released under
the GNU GPL.
> Let me rephrase:
>
> The only way to offer freedom is to restrict the freedom to
> show counterexamples.
I think you are referring to my comment that I didn't feel your
analogy was appropriate. Counterexamples are fine, but I didn't see a
clear relationship between your analogy and the subject at hand.
> > * restrict other people's ability to declare that the code is NOT
> > usable, modifiable, studiable, and redistributable.
>
> No one is restricting the ability to declare "the code" (the stuff
> YOU wrote) is NOT usable, modifiable, studiable, or redistributable.
I think you mean that the original release of the public domain code
cannot be restricted. That's true, but I addressed that, pointing out
that although the original release may not have restrictions, the same
code may be released by someone else with many restrictions.
> Your code is still available and all of those things. What they are
> restricting is the use of their own newly created configuration.
To be more specific, you are restricting their ability to
*redistribute* your code in software that has restrictive licenses.
> It's legal for you to do that, but do not confuse that legality with
> "freedom". You are restricting use of the code YOU provide.
Again, that is misleading. The GNU GPL places a restriction on the
redistribution of the code in software that has restrictive licenses.
It is helpful to distinguish between use (running the software, etc.)
and redistribution.
> Even if the code were public domain, its inclusion in a proprietary
> work would not prohibit you from stripping every public domain line
> out of the code and reusing every line of it.
What do you mean? If MegaBucks puts public domain code in their new
spreadsheet software, the user of the spreadsheet software can't strip
lines of public domain code out of the spreadsheet software -- they
can't even see the source code.
> You just can't use the code in the new configuration because someone
> has added stuff that uses your free code in a way that requires
> additional support that you did not write and do not contorl.
Do you mean that the free code has been made part of a derived work
with a restrictive license and is therefore less useful in that form?
> Make no mistake: this is simply a cultural war of control, and the
> side of "freedom" is using coercion as a tool.
In order to eliminate the chances of this strong assertion being
dismissed as FUD, please clarify what you mean by coercion. Perhaps
you're referring to the way it's tempting to encorporate some GPL'ed
software into one's own software.
In that case you have to decide whether to use the GPL'ed code and
release your own software under the GPL or alternatively to not use
the GPL'ed code and create the functionality yourself (or do without)
so that you don't have to use the GPL.
I don't think there's any coercion going on at all. If someone
doesn't want to use the GPL, just don't.
--
--Ed Cashin integrit file-verification system:
·······@terry.uga.edu http://integrit.sourceforge.net/
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfw1yjjk2xu.fsf@world.std.com>
Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu> writes:
> > Even if the code were public domain, its inclusion in a proprietary
> > work would not prohibit you from stripping every public domain line
> > out of the code and reusing every line of it.
>
> What do you mean? If MegaBucks puts public domain code in their new
> spreadsheet software, the user of the spreadsheet software can't strip
> lines of public domain code out of the spreadsheet software -- they
> can't even see the source code.
First, that's an aspect of the license. Symbolics released most of its
source code to users, but under a licenses that restricted use. Restricted
use need not imply closed source. Second, if you have the original code,
you have all the lines available, hence it doesn't matter which lines were
and were not used; you can still use all of them freely. You just can't
use the parts that were added by someone else.
> > Make no mistake: this is simply a cultural war of control, and the
> > side of "freedom" is using coercion as a tool.
>
> In order to eliminate the chances of this strong assertion being
> dismissed as FUD, please clarify what you mean by coercion.
Dismiss it how you like. Coercion means the attempt to use force (in
this case force of law) to affect the behavior of another in a way
they would not behave in the absence of said force. I'm not saying
the GPL crowd doesn't have a right to control the terms under which
their software is used; I think they do. I think all intellectual
property users do. What I'm saying is that such control is coercion.
And in the arena of intellectual property, there isn't Good(R)
coercion and Bad(R) coercion. There is just coercion in search of one
political end and coercion in search of a different political end. I
don't find GNU approaches to be particularly more noble than non-GNU
approaches, but it annoys me that the GNU style people identify
themselves as involved in a moral quest and others as being amoral. I
think morality has no business in this discussion, which often simply
pits openly selfish people against surreptitiously selfish people.
> Perhaps
> you're referring to the way it's tempting to encorporate some GPL'ed
> software into one's own software.
>
> In that case you have to decide whether to use the GPL'ed code and
> release your own software under the GPL or alternatively to not use
> the GPL'ed code and create the functionality yourself (or do without)
> so that you don't have to use the GPL.
Yes. To rephrase: You are not FREE to do the thing you'd want to do
due to the effect of "free" software. Perfectly legal. Just hypocritical
because the ends are being used to justify means with which the ends
seem morally incompatible to me.
> I don't think there's any coercion going on at all. If someone
> doesn't want to use the GPL, just don't.
The issue isn't use of the GPL, but use of so-called "free" code that
operates under the GPL.
"Excuse me, sir. Step away from the door. Don't mind my gun. It's not
coercion. If you don't want to get shot, just voluntariliy stay back."
Right. No coercion here. Just free choices.
This will be my last post on this tangent corner of this thread for
now. We could debate this without end. My intent was to register an
observation, which I have done. Anyone who doesn't want to hear that
point is free to ignore me.
Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu> writes:
> I don't see why not. You did not address my argument but rather
> restated it with the important part missing. I'll rephrase it:
>
> * the only way for a given piece of code to always be usable,
> modifyable, studiable, and redistributable is this:
>
> * restrict other people's ability to declare that the code is NOT
> usable, modifiable, studiable, and redistributable.
This is obviously false. A given piece of code that is in the public
domain will always remain usable, modifiable, studiable, and
redistributable, without restricting the rights of others.
What is true, is that keeping a given piece of code _and all
subsequent modifications, however large they may be_ always usable,
modifiable, studiable, and redistributable is by restricting the
righst of others.
Those are very different ends.
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre R. Mai <····@acm.org> http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein
From: Ed L Cashin
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <m3pu73305i.fsf@terry.uga.edu>
"Pierre R. Mai" <····@acm.org> writes:
> Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu> writes:
>
> > I don't see why not. You did not address my argument but rather
> > restated it with the important part missing. I'll rephrase it:
> >
> > * the only way for a given piece of code to always be usable,
> > modifyable, studiable, and redistributable is this:
> >
> > * restrict other people's ability to declare that the code is NOT
> > usable, modifiable, studiable, and redistributable.
>
> This is obviously false. A given piece of code that is in the public
> domain will always remain usable, modifiable, studiable, and
> redistributable, without restricting the rights of others.
>
> What is true, is that keeping a given piece of code _and all
> subsequent modifications, however large they may be_ always usable,
> modifiable, studiable, and redistributable is by restricting the
> righst of others.
>
> Those are very different ends.
True, thanks. Of course a "given piece of code" is not limited to the
tarball it's in when its first made public but rather exists wherever
it shows up, modified or not.
--
--Ed Cashin integrit file-verification system:
·······@terry.uga.edu http://integrit.sourceforge.net/
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
* Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu>
| I don't see why not. You did not address my argument but rather restated
| it with the important part missing. I'll rephrase it:
|
| * the only way for a given piece of code to always be usable,
| modifyable, studiable, and redistributable is this:
|
| * restrict other people's ability to declare that the code is NOT
| usable, modifiable, studiable, and redistributable.
This is a non sequitur. The former point refers to "a given piece of
code", but the latter refers to code that must be modifiable, and to make
this an actual issue, code which _has_ been modififed. How can that
which is valid for "a given piece of code" be valid for "a modified piece
of code"? That is the _crucial_ missing argument. Note that the whole
point of what can be done with "a given piece of code" that more than one
person has access to cannot possibly be dictated by one person, but the
modifications made by one person can.
| The only such restriction is the one restriction that is absolutely
| necessary in order for the code in question to remain available for
| everyone to use, modify, etc. Namely, that no one can restrict anyone
| else's rights.
But _you_ have restricted someone's rights to keep control over his _own_
work, namely his modifications! Why do you fail to understand this point?
| The reason that's fair is that it's the perogative of the copyright
| holder to make the software available under any terms they find
| appropriate. If the copyright holder wants to be sure that their
| restrictions are never placed on anyone's ability to use, modify, etc.,
| the software, then there is only one way to ensure that: stipulate
| explicitly that no one may restrict anyone else's rights to use, modify,
| etc., the software.
You know, I see no principal difference between what the GNU GPL is
trying to enforce and what the entertainment industry and Microsoft are
trying to enforce. I think it would be a very good idea for you guys to
get together and change the copyright laws so that you actually _can_
make that sort of restrictions on people.
It is legally uncertain whether you can require people to give you their
work for free. No matter what kinds of requirements you make on people,
it is highly doubtful that you will be able to get a court to defend a
demand to get people's copyrightable work transferred to you for free,
but we will not know for certain until someone sues someone for not
having returned some modifications they made to some source code to the
owners of the original. A contract that causes only one party to benefit
is generally considered a case of fraud and not at all upheld in court.
Now, one might argue that getting access to source code is a value, but
in that case, it has a value commensurate with the value of the work that
has been donated to it, meaning that the transfer of any work back to the
originators must be taxable or specially exempt from taxes under certain
provisions. Cleverly, the FSF is tax-exempt charity. The problem here
is that you cannot _both_ give something away for free, _and_ require to
be paid (by requiring other people's work for free) without getting into
thorny tax and valuation issues.
| You mean the original release of the code remains in the public domain.
| The part you're not attending to, though, is that public domain code can
| be modified and redistributed in products that have quite restrictive
| licenses.
This does not _need_ attending to, because public domain is explicitly
unconcerned with what happens to that which is in the public domain.
That is sort of the whole _point_.
| If the author of the original code is OK with that, so be it -- I'm not
| saying it's wrong at all. But it is important to acknowledge that when
| that happens, the same code is making a new appearance in the world as
| restricted software.
How does this differ from two different licenes for the same software so
people _can_ make money with software that is encumbered with the GNU GPL?
| It's true that the public domain version may (or may not) still be
| available, but it is easy to see that the rights of the users of the
| version with the restrictive license have less freedom.
This does not quite parse, but I assume you mean the users have less
freedom. What _are_ those "rights of the users", anyway? What kinds of
legal bases do they actually have? But how can you get _less_ freedom if
you (1) have access to the public domain source code _and_ (2) a better
version of same? (1) should cause you to have exactly as much freedom as
you had without (2). For this to produce less freedom, you would have to
consider (2) to have taken something away from you, probably in exchange
for some real money. In other words, you were an idiot for choosing (2).
Now, we do not restrict anyone's "right" to be an idiot, but it is pretty
damn stupid to argue that losing your freedom because of it is anybody
else's fault.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
From: Ed L Cashin
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <m3lmhq614m.fsf@terry.uga.edu>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
...
> You know, I see no principal difference between what the GNU GPL is
> trying to enforce and what the entertainment industry and Microsoft are
> trying to enforce.
That's easy to see by asking what would happen if each side was
carried to its logical conclusion, so that *all* software was released
with either Microsoft-type licenses or with GNU GPL licenses.
The MegaBucks way: users only have the right to use, not to study,
modify, redistribute, etc., locking them into the role of passive
consumers.
The Stallman agenda: users everywhere have the right to use, modify,
study, redistribute, etc., all code in all software everywhere.
It's a pretty big difference.
...
> It is legally uncertain whether you can require people to give you their
> work for free.
If a programmer X works his ass off on a project and then thinks to
himself, "I worked my ass off on that. I want to make my work
available for everyone to see so that poor people and college students
can learn from it and use it." (Sneer if you must, but there are
people without money trying to learn programming.)
X didn't have to do the work, but he did. He didn't have to release
the work but he does. He uses the GNU GPL specifically because his
personal aim is for the fruit of his *own* work to be available to
everyone. He could care less about stuff that MegaBucks adds to his
code -- his aim is to make his own work be a resource to others.
Of course, the benefit derived from the work X has done is not limited
to a file or distribution. Wherever the results of his work shows up,
that's *his work*. X wants those results to be available forever to
everyone.
...
> | You mean the original release of the code remains in the public domain.
> | The part you're not attending to, though, is that public domain code can
> | be modified and redistributed in products that have quite restrictive
> | licenses.
>
> This does not _need_ attending to, because public domain is explicitly
> unconcerned with what happens to that which is in the public domain.
> That is sort of the whole _point_.
It is exactly the whole point. Look at the original aim of the
programmer in the example above. He wanted to make sure that the
fruit of his work would be available for everyone, no matter what form
it takes or where it shows up. He is not unconcerned.
If there is one public domain distribution with 1000 users, then
there are zero users denied the rights that programmer X intended.
If there is one public domain distribution with 2000 users and one
MegaBucks product that relies on programmer X's work and has 400000
users, then 400000 users are denied the rights that programmer X
intended. Those users may or may not know about X's public domain
release. They probably won't know, in fact.
The only real reason to use the GNU GPL is if you feel that those
400000 users are worse off than if they had the right to modify,
study, redistribute the code. That's the kicker.
[Ed writes about public domain software that's released in
products with restrictive licenses:]
> | If the author of the original code is OK with that, so be it -- I'm not
> | saying it's wrong at all. But it is important to acknowledge that when
> | that happens, the same code is making a new appearance in the world as
> | restricted software.
>
> How does this differ from two different licenes for the same software so
> people _can_ make money with software that is encumbered with the GNU GPL?
I don't know. It doesn't appear to me to differ at all.
> | It's true that the public domain version may (or may not) still be
> | available, but it is easy to see that the rights of the users of the
> | version with the restrictive license have less freedom.
>
> This does not quite parse, but I assume you mean the users have less
> freedom. What _are_ those "rights of the users", anyway?
From http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html:
to run the program, study it and adapt it, redistribute it, improve it
> What kinds of
> legal bases do they actually have? But how can you get _less_ freedom if
> you (1) have access to the public domain source code _and_ (2) a better
> version of same?
You have less freedom specifically with regard to the product with the
restrictive license. If you are fortunate enough to know that there's
a public domain product that has the same code that's used in the
restricted product, then you can enjoy all the freedoms with regard to
that specific release.
> (1) should cause you to have exactly as much freedom as
> you had without (2). For this to produce less freedom, you would have to
> consider (2) to have taken something away from you, probably in exchange
> for some real money. In other words, you were an idiot for choosing (2).
Hmm.
> Now, we do not restrict anyone's "right" to be an idiot, but it is pretty
> damn stupid to argue that losing your freedom because of it is anybody
> else's fault.
Hmm. That's a pretty interesting take on it. I'll have to consider
that. Some people would never want to look at the source code. They
*want* to be locked into the role of passive consumer.
--
--Ed Cashin integrit file-verification system:
·······@terry.uga.edu http://integrit.sourceforge.net/
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
* Erik Naggum
| You know, I see no principal difference between what the GNU GPL is
| trying to enforce and what the entertainment industry and Microsoft are
| trying to enforce.
* Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu>
| That's easy to see by asking what would happen if each side was
| carried to its logical conclusion, so that *all* software was released
| with either Microsoft-type licenses or with GNU GPL licenses.
The same kind of argument is used when some people kill people in the
name of some religion, and some other people kill people in the name of
some other religion. They both kill people. Some think that is bad
completely regardless of whatever mumbo-jumbo they sputter in order to
defend killing people.
| > It is legally uncertain whether you can require people to give you
| > their work for free.
|
| If a programmer X works his ass off on a project and then thinks to
| himself, "I worked my ass off on that. I want to make my work
| available for everyone to see so that poor people and college students
| can learn from it and use it." (Sneer if you must, but there are
| people without money trying to learn programming.)
I am not sure how this relates to my objection. The original author has
obviously decided to do whatever he did of his own will and desire, but
the question is: Does he have the legal right to require that those who
want to use his work be required to give away _their_ work for free?
| Some people would never want to look at the source code. They *want* to
| be locked into the role of passive consumer.
Yes, and with good reason. They know that they are not competent to
accept a modified version of the software they want to use from anyone
but a vendor they trust (or could sue (possibly collectively) if things
failed). Trust really is a big issue in our industry, since there are so
few objective measure of quality and so many vendors who explicitly avoid
accepting responsibility for their products.
To make one thing very clear: I am strongly in favor of having access to
the source code of certain products. I think it should be a requirement
of vendors of compilers and operating systems to make them available, but
_not_ just to any random comer and _not_ for free. Considering the sheer
number of incompetent programmers out there who would do serious harm to
themselves and others if they had access to the source code and modified
it badly, and who blame their tools and just about anybody but themselves
for the negative consequences of their incompetence. I also believe in
distributed development and all that, but I do not trust people to write
good code unless they are under guidance from more experienced designers
and programmers. It is fairly obvious that people are willing to write
code and give it away, but it is getting increasingly obvious that all
the boring work of meticulous quality control and good documentation is
much less rewarding. It is for that reason that I want a responsible
vendor to be able to take the source code and do all the boring work in
exchange for real money and the same guarantees that they will not only
recover their costs but be sufficiently profitable to attact investors
and be able to invest in other endeavors. I think the Open Source and
so-called Free Software movement is a financial failure because it does
not allow, or actively discourages, "release quality products" that could
help them get rich by selling products to those "passive consumers".
Incidentally, it is sometimes _great_ to be a passive consumer. Having
things just _work_ is sometimes a serious relief from all the stuff that
_almost_ works.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> Incidentally, it is sometimes _great_ to be a passive consumer.
> Having things just _work_ is sometimes a serious relief from all the
> stuff that _almost_ works.
The notion of having a "distribution" for operating systems like
Linux, FreeBSD, and such demonstrates this very thing.
One of the major merits of using the Debian Linux distribution is that
it allows the user to be a "passive consumer" of those components
about which (s)he wishes to be passive, and to be "activist" about
other components. Personally, I don't care to worry about maintaining
[say] the Apache web server, but like having a working copy around to
use. If I cared to be an "activist," I could submit enhancements
and/or fixes, but it so happens that I don't.
There's a pretty big argument hole in the GPL argument about "ability
to modify;" there aren't that many people generally interested in
actually modifying the software.
That's not to say that there's not merit to the capability; it's kind
of nice that the software is available with permission to modify, on
the off-chance that whomever first developed it loses interest in
continued maintenance. I've seen people burned by the problem that
the software that their operations depend on are no longer
maintainable; licenses like the GPL provide the merit that you can't
be so painfully burned by someone else's corporate reorganization.
But the notion that everybody's planning to hack on _all_ this stuff
is just nonsense. We're all passive about _some_ things, unless the
goal is to build a minscule embedded system from scratch, and keep
refining that...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ········@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/languages.html
Hard work pays off in the long run. Laziness pays off now.
* ········@acm.org
| One of the major merits of using the Debian Linux distribution is that
| it allows the user to be a "passive consumer" of those components about
| which (s)he wishes to be passive, and to be "activist" about other
| components.
Good point.
| There's a pretty big argument hole in the GPL argument about "ability to
| modify;" there aren't that many people generally interested in actually
| modifying the software.
The threshold to actually modify is also high. Since the program has to
be recompiled, the whole compilation environment has to be dragged in,
and this is sometimes no small feat. If modifications have been made to
other parts of the environment, the probability that one cannot rebuild
something from scratch becomes non-zero. E.g., I remember when I made a
number of changes to Emacs. Patching every new version and making sure
that things worked right was getting to be a major pain. Those changes
that did not get accepted by the maintainers were simply too hard to keep
in my version. I still build my own Linux kernels because of a few bugs
that the maintainers do not to consider bugs, but got _seriously_ burned
when building with gcc-3.0. The dependency chain for building something
from scratch is often so subtle that it is difficult to specify fully.
| But the notion that everybody's planning to hack on _all_ this stuff is
| just nonsense. We're all passive about _some_ things, unless the goal is
| to build a minscule embedded system from scratch, and keep refining
| that...
Imagine how different this would be if users did not have to recompile
the whole system, if the system had a compiler that could compile patches
that could be loaded into a system without rebuilding all of it, etc...
This is a much easier way to obtain the goal of user modifiability than
requiring people to have all the source and to recompile from scratch.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * ········@acm.org
> | One of the major merits of using the Debian Linux distribution is that
> | it allows the user to be a "passive consumer" of those components about
> | which (s)he wishes to be passive, and to be "activist" about other
> | components.
> Good point.
> | There's a pretty big argument hole in the GPL argument about
> | "ability to modify;" there aren't that many people generally
> | interested in actually modifying the software.
> The threshold to actually modify is also high. Since the program
> has to be recompiled, the whole compilation environment has to be
> dragged in, and this is sometimes no small feat. If modifications
> have been made to other parts of the environment, the probability
> that one cannot rebuild something from scratch becomes non-zero.
> E.g., I remember when I made a number of changes to Emacs. Patching
> every new version and making sure that things worked right was
> getting to be a major pain. Those changes that did not get accepted
> by the maintainers were simply too hard to keep in my version. I
> still build my own Linux kernels because of a few bugs that the
> maintainers do not to consider bugs, but got _seriously_ burned when
> building with gcc-3.0. The dependency chain for building something
> from scratch is often so subtle that it is difficult to specify
> fully.
GCC 3.0 definitely sits in the "subtlety chain" position; it appears
that there are some places where Linux ("the kernel") has dependencies
on the way GCC works, so that if and when the developers change
anything, there is significant risk of breakage of code.
It's a pretty big problem, parallelling some of the discussions of
what to do about tail calls. (In both cases it may have something to
do with tail calls :-).)
> | But the notion that everybody's planning to hack on _all_ this
> | stuff is just nonsense. We're all passive about _some_ things,
> | unless the goal is to build a minscule embedded system from
> | scratch, and keep refining that...
> Imagine how different this would be if users did not have to
> recompile the whole system, if the system had a compiler that could
> compile patches that could be loaded into a system without
> rebuilding all of it, etc... This is a much easier way to obtain
> the goal of user modifiability than requiring people to have all the
> source and to recompile from scratch.
.. Then there's the BSD model where the system is specifically
designed to support all the dependancies required to recompile the
whole system, including allowing local patches.
Take it to that extreme, where they _have_ to make it _downright easy_
to recompile the whole thing, and you get some similar properties.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ·············@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/unix.html
This login session: only $23.95!
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> You know, I see no principal difference between what the GNU GPL is
> trying to enforce and what the entertainment industry and Microsoft are
> trying to enforce.
True. It should be noted, however, that the folks at the FSF are
fully cognizant of this fact, and regret having to use "evil means"
(licenses, copy{right,left}, etc) in order to pursue what they
regard as a "noble goal" (i.e. the right to share).
Whether the ends justifies the means is a question dealt with
in fairy tales and history books.
--ap
--
It would be difficult to construe Larry Wall, in article
this as a feature. <·····················@netlabs.com>
In article <··············@gondolin.local.net>, Alain Picard wrote:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
>> You know, I see no principal difference between what the GNU GPL is
>> trying to enforce and what the entertainment industry and Microsoft are
>> trying to enforce.
>
> True. It should be noted, however, that the folks at the FSF are
> fully cognizant of this fact, and regret having to use "evil means"
> (licenses, copy{right,left}, etc) in order to pursue what they
> regard as a "noble goal" (i.e. the right to share).
>
I do no think that the gpl is built around rights. I think it is
built around imposing oblagations on others. If you use 1 gpled
file in your applacation by mistake and distribute it FSF claims that
the app is now gpl and the people who used my app now have the right
to all of my work for free and I have no right to compensation for the
extra value provided by the source. I think for most end users source
has no real value most of the time, they just want it to work. This
would apply even if you removed the file and redistributed your app.
> Whether the ends justifies the means is a question dealt with
> in fairy tales and history books.
>
That attitude is realy well and truly fucked up. You do not care about
the fabric of the society you live in. This one or any other.
marc
> --ap
> --
> It would be difficult to construe Larry Wall, in article
> this as a feature. <·····················@netlabs.com>
In article <···················@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>I do no think that the gpl is built around rights. I think it is
>built around imposing oblagations on others. If you use 1 gpled
>file in your applacation by mistake and distribute it FSF claims that
>the app is now gpl and the people who used my app now have the right
If you use a GPLed file by mistake, then you're an idiot.
What exactly is your point? That every piece of source code you can
get your hands on should be in the public domain, so that in case you
``accidentally'' put it in your program, you are not violating any
license?
>to all of my work for free and I have no right to compensation for the
Bullshit. The unlawful inclusion of copyrighted material into your work
does not cause your work to lose its copyright protection. This is a
simple case of infringement. A stupid mistake was made that you can
repair in various ways, such as removing the GPLed source file from
future releases of your program. Whether or not you want to put your
program under the GNU License is entirely up to you.
>extra value provided by the source. I think for most end users source
>has no real value most of the time, they just want it to work.
Even users who don't do anything with source code benefit from that
source code being available to *others*.
Also, how can something have value some of the time, but not most of
the time? Something has value when it has a potential to be
used in some way. That potential does not exist only when that use
is made; it is latent.
Really, you should consider allowing for the collaboration of two
or more brain cells in the formation of a Usenet posting.
> This
>would apply even if you removed the file and redistributed your app.
If you remove the file which is the source of infringement, then the work
is no longer a copyright infringement. The existing copies of the work in
circulartion are still infringing; there isn't anything you can do about
that other than inform the users about the issue. Once the users know that
they are using an infringing work that has been recalled, it's up to
them to decide what to do.
In article <·····················@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> In article <···················@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>I do no think that the gpl is built around rights. I think it is
>>built around imposing oblagations on others. If you use 1 gpled
>>file in your applacation by mistake and distribute it FSF claims that
>>the app is now gpl and the people who used my app now have the right
>
> If you use a GPLed file by mistake, then you're an idiot.
Thanks for the insight, words of true genius.
>
> What exactly is your point? That every piece of source code you can
> get your hands on should be in the public domain, so that in case you
> ``accidentally'' put it in your program, you are not violating any
> license?
here is my point the gpl is NOT NOT NOT free, but is presented as free
and this is dishonest and misleading.
>
>>to all of my work for free and I have no right to compensation for the
>
> Bullshit. The unlawful inclusion of copyrighted material into your work
> does not cause your work to lose its copyright protection. This is a
> simple case of infringement. A stupid mistake was made that you can
> repair in various ways, such as removing the GPLed source file from
> future releases of your program. Whether or not you want to put your
> program under the GNU License is entirely up to you.
>
once code is touched by gpled code the FSF's oppinion is that it is
all gpled code, as I unserstand it.
>>extra value provided by the source. I think for most end users source
>>has no real value most of the time, they just want it to work.
>
> Even users who don't do anything with source code benefit from that
> source code being available to *others*.
I just do not agree with that, most users want support and that is
it. I think they would prefer prompt quality support over source
avilabity hand down.
>
> Also, how can something have value some of the time, but not most of
> the time? Something has value when it has a potential to be
> used in some way. That potential does not exist only when that use
> is made; it is latent.
something is of value to me IFF I need or wnat it, then and only then
can we dicker over it value to me(buyer) versus it value to
you(seller). let me give you a concrete example:
how much is 10 gallons of drinking water worth in:
the desert, if you do not get this water you die
your house, where you have more water then you need
the water is exactly the same but it value has changed drasticly
here is another example
you the ingredients needed to make 40 apple pies and it is worth X
1: and you have an incomptent chef. Because of that you have no pies and
no ingredents at the end of the day
2: and you have a master chef that makes great and wonderious apple
pies that you can sell for 3x the price of a regular apple pie.
Both of those examples show that things do not have innate value but
depend on the situation. Does this make sence now??
>
> Really, you should consider allowing for the collaboration of two
> or more brain cells in the formation of a Usenet posting.
>
how does this personal atack help you make your point? Or is this
your point?
>> This
>>would apply even if you removed the file and redistributed your app.
>
> If you remove the file which is the source of infringement, then the work
> is no longer a copyright infringement. The existing copies of the work in
> circulartion are still infringing; there isn't anything you can do about
> that other than inform the users about the issue. Once the users know that
> they are using an infringing work that has been recalled, it's up to
> them to decide what to do.
Here are the steps that get me into the source code maintenence
business:
1: I by acedent use some gpled software in something I write.
2: I release a tarball and to be nice a binary rpm
3: I relize I made a mistake and remove the gpled code
4: because of the binary distribution in step 2 I am now required to
keep a copy of the source avalable for 3 years as per the gpl
is that simple enough for you?
you do not get it do you, once I do the binary distribution containing
gpled code the licence requires me to make source avalable for 3 years
there is no do over clause in the license.
marc
In article <···················@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>here is my point the gpl is NOT NOT NOT free, but is presented as free
>and this is dishonest and misleading.
Would you like to actually name someone, and accuse him or her of lying?
As far as ``free'' goes, the GNU advocates go through great pains to
tell everyone what they mean when they use the word, to the point
of being irritating to some.
If you read any document and it uses a word like ``free'' that
has many meanings, and you substitute your own interpretation rather
than look up the intended meaning in the document's glossary,
then it's not the case that the document is dishonest and misleading,
but rather than you are an idiot who doesn't know how to read
a document correctly.
In article <·····················@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> In article <···················@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>here is my point the gpl is NOT NOT NOT free, but is presented as free
>>and this is dishonest and misleading.
>
> Would you like to actually name someone, and accuse him or her of lying?
>
It was explained in my previous post, in a part you cut out that I do
not think anything that comes with oblagations is free, my dictionary
agrees with me on this(see below)
> As far as ``free'' goes, the GNU advocates go through great pains to
> tell everyone what they mean when they use the word, to the point
> of being irritating to some.
I do not care what made up definition they use I care about the agreed
apon definitions used by everyone else.
>
> If you read any document and it uses a word like ``free'' that
> has many meanings, and you substitute your own interpretation rather
> than look up the intended meaning in the document's glossary,
> then it's not the case that the document is dishonest and misleading,
> but rather than you are an idiot who doesn't know how to read
> a document correctly.
Just to be sure I was not wrong I just reread the definition of free
in the dictionary and all of the definations seem to contradict the
FSF's personel definition of free. Now I am able to decide to call
rare roast beef cheese, but if I order a cheese sandwich I do not
think I have any right to expect a roast beef sandwitch, do you? Well
let me type in my dictionaries definition of free:
free:
1: having liberity
2: not controled by others
3: made or done voluntarily
4: released or not suffering from something unpleasant
5: not subject to a duty tax or other charge
6: not obstructed
7: not being used or occupided
8: not fastened
9: lavish
10: open , frank
11: given with out charge
12: not literal or exact
13: not restricted by conventional forms
The dictionary is "The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary"
copy right 1989
the FSF definition of free seems to contradict 2, 5, 6 and 11 easly
and 4 and 10 are a matter of opinion.
and will you please stop with the idiot remarks, I have test score
that prove I am not an idiot. I have been a fool on several occasions
but I do not think this is one of them.
Also as evdence of your masterful braininess could you just once atack
the arguments I put fourth and not me. Is that possable for you to do
just once as a proof of concept demo?
marc
In article <···················@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>In article <·····················@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> In article <···················@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>>here is my point the gpl is NOT NOT NOT free, but is presented as free
>>>and this is dishonest and misleading.
>>
>> Would you like to actually name someone, and accuse him or her of lying?
>>
>
>It was explained in my previous post, in a part you cut out that I do
>not think anything that comes with oblagations is free, my dictionary
>agrees with me on this(see below)
So you must object to a whole lot of uses of the word ``free'' made in
the market place.
>> As far as ``free'' goes, the GNU advocates go through great pains to
>> tell everyone what they mean when they use the word, to the point
>> of being irritating to some.
>
>I do not care what made up definition they use I care about the agreed
>apon definitions used by everyone else.
The most common definition used in the consumer marketplace is that free
means you don't have to pay. Since you can obtain GNU-type software that
way, this interpretation holds true.
For instance, a GNU program is *at least* as free as Internet Explorer,
which Microsoft claims is free for download.
What about all those vendors who offers you a ``free gift''---with
a purchase, of course.
>Just to be sure I was not wrong I just reread the definition of free
>in the dictionary and all of the definations seem to contradict the
>FSF's personel definition of free.
[ snip ]
>let me type in my dictionaries definition of free:
>free:
>1: having liberity
>2: not controled by others
>3: made or done voluntarily
>4: released or not suffering from something unpleasant
>5: not subject to a duty tax or other charge
>6: not obstructed
>7: not being used or occupided
>8: not fastened
>9: lavish
>10: open , frank
>11: given with out charge
>12: not literal or exact
>13: not restricted by conventional forms
>
>The dictionary is "The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary"
>copy right 1989
>
>the FSF definition of free seems to contradict 2, 5, 6 and 11 easly
>and 4 and 10 are a matter of opinion.
Let's see. That leaves 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13. You said above that
the FSF's usage seems to contradict *all* of the nuances of the word
covered in your dictionary, not only six out of thirteen.
>and will you please stop with the idiot remarks, I have test score
>that prove I am not an idiot.
Your test scores mean nothing here. Stop being an idiot here, and
the remarks will stop. Perhaps your test didn't require the ability to
count to 13.
* ···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku)
| The most common definition used in the consumer marketplace is that free
| means you don't have to pay. Since you can obtain GNU-type software that
| way, this interpretation holds true.
No, it does not. If I get some gizmo for free, it is mine to use, abuse,
destroy, take apart and use the parts for something else, etc. If I get
some GNU GPL'ed source code for "free", if I take it apart and use the
parts for something else, I suddenly owe somebody else something. This
is _not_ what "free" means. If I modify the free gizmo and find a way to
make some better gizmo, I owe nobody anything. If I do the same with a
GNU GPL'ed program, I must give the new, better idea back to whoever gave
it to me for "free". I think there is an old idiom, "Indian giver" or
something, which applies to people who do not _really_ give things away.
| For instance, a GNU program is *at least* as free as Internet Explorer,
| which Microsoft claims is free for download.
Well, yes, as long as you do not use the source code, which is supposedly
the whole point with the GNU GPL.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * ···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku)
> | The most common definition used in the consumer marketplace is that free
> | means you don't have to pay. Since you can obtain GNU-type software that
> | way, this interpretation holds true.
>
> No, it does not. If I get some gizmo for free, it is mine to use, abuse,
> destroy, take apart and use the parts for something else, etc. If I get
> some GNU GPL'ed source code for "free", if I take it apart and use the
> parts for something else, I suddenly owe somebody else something. This
> is _not_ what "free" means. If I modify the free gizmo and find a way to
> make some better gizmo, I owe nobody anything. If I do the same with a
> GNU GPL'ed program, I must give the new, better idea back to whoever gave
> it to me for "free". I think there is an old idiom, "Indian giver" or
> something, which applies to people who do not _really_ give things away.
The comparisons being drawn relate to software; when Microsoft offers
a "free" copy of IE, or Oracle offers a "free" copy of some database
product, or Franz offers a "free" copy of ACL, you don't have any of
those freedoms either. You can't modify IE and pass it on, even
though "it's free."
And remember, there's no such thing as "free beer," because you can
only ever _borrow_ beer. :-)
> | For instance, a GNU program is *at least* as free as Internet Explorer,
> | which Microsoft claims is free for download.
>
> Well, yes, as long as you do not use the source code, which is supposedly
> the whole point with the GNU GPL.
What would be the circumstance where you're _less_ free to use a GNU
program than you are to use Internet Explorer? Remember, the fact
that you have access to sources for the GNU program provides options
you'd never be likely to have with IE...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ·············@" "sirhc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html
It is usually a good idea to put a capacitor of a few microfarads
across the output, as shown.
* ········@acm.org
| The comparisons being drawn relate to software;
Software is not materially different from any other object being traded.
| when Microsoft offers a "free" copy of IE, or Oracle offers a "free" copy
| of some database product, or Franz offers a "free" copy of ACL, you don't
| have any of those freedoms either.
Part of the problem here is equivocation. These "free" things mean only
and explicitly "free of charge", not any political mumbo-jumbo. They
also come with extensive licenses that you have to agree to. When you
get GNU software, this licensing stuff is _not_ made explicit up front in
all cases, and the consequences are far from obvious. I believe this is
intentional. GNU Emacs is the only GNU program I know that does a really
good job of making the licensing issue explicit and clear, and Debian is
the only GNU/Linux distribution that does a good job of making their
policies explicit. I think the strings attached to GNU "free software"
should be advertised much more vigorously.
| You can't modify IE and pass it on, even though "it's free."
True, but they only come sue me if I do something I am not licensed to
do. In the case of GNU GPL'ed stuff, they can, in theory, force me to
give away stuff that is not related to the object whose license I have
supposedly violated.
| And remember, there's no such thing as "free beer," because you can only
| ever _borrow_ beer. :-)
:)
| What would be the circumstance where you're _less_ free to use a GNU
| program than you are to use Internet Explorer?
Well, when you would like to exercise those source access options...
| Remember, the fact that you have access to sources for the GNU program
| provides options you'd never be likely to have with IE...
True, but they come with a very hefty price tag. It is in fact a very
good idea _not_ to exercise those options because of that price tag.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote:
>* ········@acm.org
>| The comparisons being drawn relate to software;
>
> Software is not materially different from any other object being traded.
Nonsense; software is entirely abstract. All identical copies of a
program are EQ; they are really one program.
The object that is traded is some medium, like a polycarbonate disc
embedding some metallic foil. But nobody thinks of the transaction as
being the exchange of plastic, which costs pennies.
What you are trading is something abstract, symbolic that is represented
in the medium.
>| when Microsoft offers a "free" copy of IE, or Oracle offers a "free" copy
>| of some database product, or Franz offers a "free" copy of ACL, you don't
>| have any of those freedoms either.
>
> Part of the problem here is equivocation. These "free" things mean only
> and explicitly "free of charge", not any political mumbo-jumbo. They
> also come with extensive licenses that you have to agree to. When you
> get GNU software, this licensing stuff is _not_ made explicit up front in
> all cases, and the consequences are far from obvious.
That's because you don't have to agree to any license to *use* GNU software.
No licenses pop up in your face because there is nothing to agree to.
I've noticed that some GNU programs, in particular ones for Windows, pop
up the GNU license in the installer and require the user to agree to it.
That is ridiculous and unnecessary, because the user is installing the
program, not redistributing it!
> I believe this is
> intentional.
It is. Why shove licensing in the face of people, when 99% of them will
ever only *use* the program, which requires no licensing?
>| You can't modify IE and pass it on, even though "it's free."
>
> True, but they only come sue me if I do something I am not licensed to
> do. In the case of GNU GPL'ed stuff, they can, in theory, force me to
> give away stuff that is not related to the object whose license I have
> supposedly violated.
Only if you accidentally make it appear that you are offering that stuff
under the license. For instance, you add the stuff to a program, and that
program's distribution contains a COPYING file which apears to apply to
that stuff.
But otherwise, if a mistake is made, it's a straight case of infringement,
whose resolution is not necessarily that you are forced to give away
your stuff.
>| And remember, there's no such thing as "free beer," because you can only
>| ever _borrow_ beer. :-)
>
> :)
And with beer, nobody really *wants* your modified version. ;)
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote:
> >* ········@acm.org
> >| And remember, there's no such thing as "free beer," because you
> >| can only ever _borrow_ beer. :-)
> > :)
> And with beer, nobody really *wants* your modified version. ;)
For a fictional counterexample, you'd need to look to the Steve Perry
SF novel, _The Man Who Never Missed_. The name of the novel suggest a
sort of double-entendre that _doesn't_ relate to the issue, but is fun
to throw in anyways...
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@ntlug.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/wp.html
"On a normal ascii line, the only safe condition to detect is a
'BREAK' - everything else having been assigned functions by Gnu
EMACS." -- Tarl Neustaedter
* Kaz Kylheku
| Nonsense; software is entirely abstract. All identical copies of a
| program are EQ; they are really one program.
No. Bits are real, nothing abstract abaout them.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote:
>* Kaz Kylheku
>| Nonsense; software is entirely abstract. All identical copies of a
>| program are EQ; they are really one program.
>
> No. Bits are real, nothing abstract abaout them.
Okay, but they are real in a way that is different from ``any other
object being traded''. They are real in the same sense that the integers
are real. There is only one 42; new utterances of 42 don't give rise to
a new integer.
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote:
> >* Kaz Kylheku
> >| Nonsense; software is entirely abstract. All identical copies of a
> >| program are EQ; they are really one program.
> >
> > No. Bits are real, nothing abstract abaout them.
>
> Okay, but they are real in a way that is different from ``any other
> object being traded''. They are real in the same sense that the integers
> are real. There is only one 42; new utterances of 42 don't give rise to
> a new integer.
Are you sure? :) After all, 42 is such a special number....
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
* Kaz Kylheku
| Okay, but they are real in a way that is different from ``any other
| object being traded''. They are real in the same sense that the integers
| are real. There is only one 42; new utterances of 42 don't give rise to
| a new integer.
This is convenient mythology for some political and ideological ends, but
it is bogus all the way through. There is _nothing_ in the creation and
duplication of bits that differs one hoot from creation and duplication
of any other kind of object. Think about it, please.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote:
>* Kaz Kylheku
>| Okay, but they are real in a way that is different from ``any other
>| object being traded''. They are real in the same sense that the integers
>| are real. There is only one 42; new utterances of 42 don't give rise to
>| a new integer.
>
> This is convenient mythology for some political and ideological ends, but
> it is bogus all the way through. There is _nothing_ in the creation and
> duplication of bits that differs one hoot from creation and duplication
> of any other kind of object. Think about it, please.
Yes, duplication of the *representation* of bits much like duplication
of any other object.
But there are some differences.
Software is duplicated whenever it is used; the stored representation
isn't used directly by a data processor. Ordinary objects are not
duplicated prior to use.
Bits can have many representations and is easily and automatically
converted among them. An ordinary object is usually created by a single
process, and thereafter keeps its representation.
Duplication of bits can be done today with very little cost using
consumer-grade equipment. That kind of duplication of ordinary
objects is the subject of Star Trek. If you know of a matter replicator,
I'd love to hear about it. Mass production of objects is not duplication;
it's an optimized, specialized process for making specific kinds of
new instances of things out of raw materials. A given process can't
be trivially readjusted to make a completely different thing. But a bit
replicator will copy any bit sequence.
Lastly, when an ordinary object is traded, the value is usually
assigned to the *instance*. When bits are traded, it's not the concrete
representation, or instance that is being traded, but rather the *class*:
the abstract program which all representations are instances of.
It's no use denying differences that are real, just because they
don't agree with your political view. Reality must be the starting
point of all rational thought.
* Kaz Kylheku
| Software is duplicated whenever it is used; the stored representation
| isn't used directly by a data processor. Ordinary objects are not
| duplicated prior to use.
Well, if software is duplicated prior to use, a book that is read by a
human reader is duplicated in that the light reflected from the book is
a fresh copy, a movie is "performed" by duplication, a TV program or a
piece of recorded music likewise.
| Bits can have many representations and is easily and automatically
| converted among them. An ordinary object is usually created by a single
| process, and thereafter keeps its representation.
Non sequitur. In between each bit's representation it also keeps its
representation, exactly the same way everything else does. Given enough
time, everything has been and can be everything else. Being confused by
the short timespan is as silly as being confused by the low cost.
| Duplication of bits can be done today with very little cost using
| consumer-grade equipment.
The cost is completely irrelevant to the process. In fact, it is that it
is almost cost-less that has led people to confuse cost with process, but
the fact that people drag in the cost highlights the _existence_ of a
process by which it is copied, almost for free, so the key must be the
process, not the cost.
| That kind of duplication of ordinary objects is the subject of Star Trek.
Only because you think in too short a timeframe. Think about it.
| If you know of a matter replicator, I'd love to hear about it.
Quit the stupid game you play.
| Mass production of objects is not duplication; it's an optimized,
| specialized process for making specific kinds of new instances of things
| out of raw materials.
Non sequitur.
| A given process can't be trivially readjusted to make a completely
| different thing. But a bit replicator will copy any bit sequence.
Irrelevant.
| Lastly, when an ordinary object is traded, the value is usually assigned
| to the *instance*.
Sufficiently many objects are traded based on the same valuation as
software, yet still exist, that this is completely irrelevant.
| When bits are traded, it's not the concrete representation, or instance
| that is being traded, but rather the *class*: the abstract program which
| all representations are instances of.
Non sequitur. The same goes for movies, books, recorded music, etc.
| It's no use denying differences that are real, just because they don't
| agree with your political view.
Oh, christ, if you have nothing better to dredge up when you have no
argument to offer, at least admit that you have none.
| Reality must be the starting point of all rational thought.
Quit the stupid game you play. Just because you see things in a bogus,
mythological way, does not mean that have any right to assume that
reality _is_ only what you want it to be. Pretending to have a monopoly
on the proper interpretation of reality is the hallmark of the believers
in mythology who cannot defend their faith. Quit the stupid game and get
back to the rational thought.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote:
>* Kaz Kylheku
>| That kind of duplication of ordinary objects is the subject of Star Trek.
>
> Only because you think in too short a timeframe. Think about it.
I predict that if matter replicators ever become reality, they will make
a lot of people upset. I envision that copying a loaf of bread to feed
yourself will infringe on some bakery's intellectual property. :)
>| If you know of a matter replicator, I'd love to hear about it.
>
> Quit the stupid game you play.
Fair enough; I shall watch for the use of vacuous rhetorical devices
when conversing with you in the future. The above is really crap,
I agree.
> Sufficiently many objects are traded based on the same valuation as
> software, yet still exist, that this is completely irrelevant.
>
>| When bits are traded, it's not the concrete representation, or instance
>| that is being traded, but rather the *class*: the abstract program which
>| all representations are instances of.
>
> Non sequitur. The same goes for movies, books, recorded music, etc.
I have been using the term ``program'', but, to be clear, I did not
intend to exclude other types of software artifacts.
I have some ASCII text files of classic literature; for some reason I
still refer to them simply as books.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote:
>* ···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku)
>| Fair enough; I shall watch for the use of vacuous rhetorical devices
>| when conversing with you in the future. The above is really crap,
>| I agree.
>
> Of all the stupid crap in this newgroup where people accuse me of not
> seperating a person from his opinions, which I do as a matter of course,
> it bugs me to find someone go so dramatically wrong. It is probabbly
> just another flippant figure of speech, of course, since it appears that
> some people get _really_ ticked off by treated more seriously than they
> want to be
To be clear, my remark above is perfectly serious; It is reasonable of
you to ask, in a debate, that others not address you with inane rhetoric
devices that don't contribute anything useful. So I apologize for that.
* ···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku)
| To be clear, my remark above is perfectly serious; It is reasonable of
| you to ask, in a debate, that others not address you with inane rhetoric
| devices that don't contribute anything useful. So I apologize for that.
If you could only manage to think about addressing the topic under
debate, not the people who take part in it. If someone objects to a
flippant remark about the 2001-09-11 WTC incident, that does not mean
_they_ are opposed to flippant remarks and should be shunned by all cool
people for the rest of their lives, it means that they think it is
inappropriate in that particular setting. But I shall never cease to be
amazed by how people seem to be inordinately preoccupied with _people_ to
the exclusion of understanding any other relevant context.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote:
>* ···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku)
>| To be clear, my remark above is perfectly serious; It is reasonable of
>| you to ask, in a debate, that others not address you with inane rhetoric
>| devices that don't contribute anything useful. So I apologize for that.
>
> If you could only manage to think about addressing the topic under
> debate, not the people who take part in it.
So, to be clear, it is to be understood that, for instance, ``Quit the
stupid game you play!'' addresses the topic, rather than anyone taking
part in the debate, so my response to it was inappropriate. That is,
it wasn't to be interpreted as a request to discontinue the use of
flippant remarks, even though it resembles one. I think I can't blamed
for not knowing that initially, but I'm quite willing to follow any rule
of interpretation once it becomes explicit or otherwise obvious.
Nevertheless, the discontinuation of flippant remarks seems like a good
idea; requested or not, it has merit.
* Kaz Kylheku
| That is, it wasn't to be interpreted as a request to discontinue the use
| of flippant remarks, even though it resembles one.
Of course it was a request to discontinue the use of flippant remarks.
What _is_ your problem?
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
* Erik Naggum -> Kaz Kylheku
> This is convenient mythology for some political and ideological ends, but
> it is bogus all the way through. There is _nothing_ in the creation and
> duplication of bits that differs one hoot from creation and duplication
> of any other kind of object. Think about it, please.
I haven't really followed this thread, so this should be seen as just me
stating my opinion on some subject, FWIW:
I find it useful to think of the world as being composed of two inherently
different essences: matter/energy and information. As energy and refined
matter still are scarce resources, I think it's only reasonable that objects
carrying much matter/energy can be owned and traded. Informational objects
OTOH, such as software, literature and music, have become so easy to copy
that IMO it does not make much sense to treat such objects the same way as
material objects. This is not a moral statement (there are no such things
as "natural rights"), I merely believe that an economy based on
proprietorship of informational objects is bound to either fail or to
protect it's information using ever more totalitarian methods. (I don't
like the saying, but information really wants to be free. :-)
Until the emergence of super-intelligent machines, however, _knowledge_ will
have nonzero market value, even without totalitarian regimes to protect it.
Erik
* Erik Haugan
| I find it useful to think of the world as being composed of two inherently
| different essences: matter/energy and information.
For what purposes is it useful?
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Erik Haugan
> | I find it useful to think of the world as being composed of two inherently
> | different essences: matter/energy and information.
> For what purposes is it useful?
Cosmology?
Ole
* Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
> * Erik Haugan
> | I find it useful to think of the world as being composed of two inherently
> | different essences: matter/energy and information.
>
> For what purposes is it useful?
For reasoning.
I'm just a layman in the fields of information theory and modern physics,
but it's clear that there really _is_ a fundamental distinction between
energy and information (the latter is closely connected to the physical term
entropy). That you need energy to transfer or process information does not
make it less so.
I like to think that the old dualism of matter and spirit, or body and mind
just is an early attempt at describing the distinction between energy and
information. Information is the stuff our minds are made up of.
Back to Earth: from a practical point of view it suffices to say that it's
irrational to include in an economy forms of ownership that are so hard to
enforce. After all, economy is just human interaction, it's not a law of
nature (that would be a religious claim).
Erik
* Erik Haugan
| I'm just a layman in the fields of information theory and modern physics,
| but it's clear that there really _is_ a fundamental distinction between
| energy and information (the latter is closely connected to the physical
| term entropy). That you need energy to transfer or process information
| does not make it less so.
Since information theory is used here by Erann Gat to beat people over
the head instead of reasoning with it, I would tend to think there is
nothing to it, but "information" is supposedly non-real. "Intangible"
qualities of "information" are just taken for granted and do not follow
from nor are they a requirement to biuld any "information theory" as I
see it. I would like those who argue that "information" _cannot_ be real
to find a way to _exclude_ realness of information. After all, nothing
_else_ is non-real the way information is, so setting it apart from all
else should be a fairly simple problem.
But please note that this is not at all about "information theory", any
more than the value of money is intangible and financial theory is a
theory of intangible qualities. Somehow, somewhere, someone decided that
it was more useful to make "information" _intangible_. That is the
decision that caused an enormous number of problems for all parties
involved, and if we do not reverse that decision, we will see more cases
like the Communications Decency Act, which was a direct consequence of
the specialness of "information" in an electronic medium that differed
substantially from any other medium. The current debates over copyright
and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act are direct consequences of the
desire to see "information" as a distinct category of being, separate
from any other known category of being, such that existing copyright laws
do not work in this "new world". The mythological mumbojumbo has created
a setting that has caused lawmakers and lobbyists to _succeed_ in making
a hell out of what should have been, and really is, a simple extension of
prior intellectual property laws. The refusal to understand that there
_is_ no reason to create a whole new category of being is producing a
number of really bad consequences in our modern societies.
| I like to think that the old dualism of matter and spirit, or body and
| mind just is an early attempt at describing the distinction between
| energy and information.
Well, it seems that mysticism is supporting the notion of "information".
| Back to Earth: from a practical point of view it suffices to say that
| it's irrational to include in an economy forms of ownership that are so
| hard to enforce.
It became hard to enforce because mysticists like yourself refuse to
define what this information is. Other people do not have this problem,
and can deal with the "intangible" goods perfectly well. It is a matter
of some philosophical importance to figure out where in the grand scheme
of things information finds its place. Creating a whole new category is
the intellectual's version of a layman saying "I don't know".
| After all, economy is just human interaction, it's not a law of nature
| (that would be a religious claim).
Please, this is getting _really_ ridiculous.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
* Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>
> Since information theory is used here by Erann Gat to beat people over
> the head instead of reasoning with it, I would tend to think there is
> nothing to it, but "information" is supposedly non-real.
I see that it was a mistake to bring up the differences between energy and
information in this context, as it has no direct consequence for my position
on how information should be treated economically. I tried to make that
clear, but see now that it was bound to fail.
> It became hard to enforce because mysticists like yourself refuse to
> define what this information is.
I'm no mystic, and I haven't refused to define what information is (but I'm
not sure I can do it well).
> Other people do not have this problem, and can deal with the "intangible"
> goods perfectly well.
I have no problem dealing with "intangible goods" either. My position is
simply that you can't prevent unauthorized copying of digital information,
so it's futile to try. We should change the economy in stead.
> It is a matter of some philosophical importance to figure out where in the
> grand scheme of things information finds its place. Creating a whole new
> category is the intellectual's version of a layman saying "I don't know".
Well, it's my best shot.
> | After all, economy is just human interaction, it's not a law of nature
> | (that would be a religious claim).
>
> Please, this is getting _really_ ridiculous.
I don't know what you're getting at, but of course, economy is not _just_
human interaction, I don't know how I managed to say that. My intention was
to say that a number of economic systems are possible, and that no one is
_inherently_ better that others. We should choose a system that fulfills
our needs. FWIW, I claim that all economic systems tested out in modern
societies so far has failed grossly at that.
Erik
In article <··············@kometknut.neitileu.no>,
Erik Haugan <····@haugan.no> wrote:
>
>I'm just a layman in the fields of information theory and modern physics,
>but it's clear that there really _is_ a fundamental distinction between
>energy and information (the latter is closely connected to the physical term
>entropy). That you need energy to transfer or process information does not
>make it less so.
>
>I like to think that the old dualism of matter and spirit, or body and mind
>just is an early attempt at describing the distinction between energy and
>information. Information is the stuff our minds are made up of.
>
>Back to Earth: from a practical point of view it suffices to say that it's
>irrational to include in an economy forms of ownership that are so hard to
>enforce. After all, economy is just human interaction, it's not a law of
>nature (that would be a religious claim).
>
>Erik
Can information travel faster than light? If it can't,
it probably is a commodity, with all the problems and
opportunities of ownership and distribution that
that entails.
(I heard a news item some months ago about a
recent photon experiment that apparently showed
that info can indeed travel faster than light, but the
physics is too difficult for me. If it indeed is true,
I wonder why it hasn't received far more
earth-shattering coverage that it has.)
--d
In article <············@news.gte.com>, ····@gte.com wrote:
> Can information travel faster than light?
Not unless general relativity is wrong. If you could transmit information
faster than light then you could also transmit information backwards in
time. This is way off topic for comp.lang.lisp but if you're interested
send me an email.
Erann Gat
···@jpl.nasa.gov
* ····@goldshoe.gte.com (Dorai Sitaram)
> Can information travel faster than light?
No.
> If it can't, it probably is a commodity, with all the problems and
> opportunities of ownership and distribution that that entails.
The economic classification of things is not dependent upon the results of
experiments in particle physics.
Erik
····@goldshoe.gte.com (Dorai Sitaram) writes:
> (I heard a news item some months ago about a
> recent photon experiment that apparently showed
> that info can indeed travel faster than light, but the
Not quite - check out the FAQ of the researchers:
http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/lwan/faq.htm
--
(espen)
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote:
> >* Kaz Kylheku
> >| Nonsense; software is entirely abstract. All identical copies of a
> >| program are EQ; they are really one program.
> >
> > No. Bits are real, nothing abstract abaout them.
>
> Okay, but they are real in a way that is different from ``any other
> object being traded''. They are real in the same sense that the integers
> are real. There is only one 42; new utterances of 42 don't give rise to
> a new integer.
I thought each utterance gave rise to 42 new 42's :)
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote:
> >
> > Part of the problem here is equivocation. These "free" things mean only
> > and explicitly "free of charge", not any political mumbo-jumbo. They
> > also come with extensive licenses that you have to agree to. When you
> > get GNU software, this licensing stuff is _not_ made explicit up front in
> > all cases, and the consequences are far from obvious.
> ...
> > I believe this is
> > intentional.
>
> It is. Why shove licensing in the face of people, when 99% of them will
> ever only *use* the program, which requires no licensing?
I find this part [(non) warranty] of the GPL quite important,
especially to *users*:
THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS
WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST
OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
(But most Windows users will click the "I agree" option anyway because
that's what Big Bill (as in Big Brother) has tought them -- Windows
itself comes with NO-WARRANTY and that should be the norm for all
software from now on.)
--
Janis Dzerins
Eat shit -- billions of flies can't be wrong.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * ········@acm.org
> | The comparisons being drawn relate to software;
>
> Software is not materially different from any other object being
> traded.
>
> | when Microsoft offers a "free" copy of IE, or Oracle offers a
> | "free" copy of some database product, or Franz offers a "free"
> | copy of ACL, you don't have any of those freedoms either.
> Part of the problem here is equivocation. These "free" things mean
> only and explicitly "free of charge", not any political mumbo-jumbo.
> They also come with extensive licenses that you have to agree to.
> When you get GNU software, this licensing stuff is _not_ made
> explicit up front in all cases, and the consequences are far from
> obvious. I believe this is intentional. GNU Emacs is the only GNU
> program I know that does a really good job of making the licensing
> issue explicit and clear, and Debian is the only GNU/Linux
> distribution that does a good job of making their policies explicit.
> I think the strings attached to GNU "free software" should be
> advertised much more vigorously.
I certainly agree that "understanding licensing" should be something
that people pay more attention to.
As it were, it might be compared to vegetarianism:
Supposing everyone had to visit an abattoir as part of their
education, there would probably be more people, shocked at how messy
is the process of getting meat into those styrofoam trays, who would
swear off the stuff.
On the other hand, the remainder of the population would likely be a
mite less squeamish about a whole lot of things as a result of such
an experience.
A lot of things about life are messy, and hiding the details behind a
curtain isn't terribly helpful, at least not as a persistent
condition.
As for the GPL being somehow "hidden," that strikes me as being
largely nonsensical. The folks at the FSF are definitely quite
activist at trying to push out information.
RMS does this more than most; any time I've seen him in person, he's
been _so_ vigorous at emitting his opinion on this that about the only
people that are likely _not_ to be offended by _something_ he says are
those _so_ worshipful of him that they'd pretty much be characterized
as an "RMS Personality Cult."
The folks more likely to be hiding licensing issues are those that
want to sell you on getting a Linux distribution whilst hiding the
notion that there is any thought necessary in considering licensing
terms.
> | You can't modify IE and pass it on, even though "it's free."
> True, but they only come sue me if I do something I am not
> licensed to do. In the case of GNU GPL'ed stuff, they can, in
> theory, force me to give away stuff that is not related to the
> object whose license I have supposedly violated.
It's been known to happen, once, to my knowledge. NeXT had to release
the sources for the Objective C compiler. Not that this has generally
proved to be of vast and spectacular importance; while there is now a
pretty robust "objc" backend for GCC, it's hardly used. Not that
hardly anyone uses Objective C, either; it's probably less used than
Lisp :-).
> | And remember, there's no such thing as "free beer," because you can only
> | ever _borrow_ beer. :-)
>
> :)
>
> | What would be the circumstance where you're _less_ free to use a GNU
> | program than you are to use Internet Explorer?
>
> Well, when you would like to exercise those source access options...
.. which _didn't exist_ with Internet Exploder, so it's _not_
something that you "lose." It's something you didn't _have_ with IE.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ·············@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html
"The best design is not predicated on how brain-dead you can be and
still operate it." -- David C. Wright
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> * ········@acm.org
> | The comparisons being drawn relate to software;
>
> Software is not materially different from any other object being traded.
Yes it is. Software isn't made of matter. (The media in which software
resides are made of matter, but the software itself is not.) The
"physics" of software are different from the physics of material objects.
> In the case of GNU GPL'ed stuff, they can, in theory, force me to
> give away stuff that is not related to the object whose license I have
> supposedly violated.
No, they can't. From the GPL paragraph 2:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.
Erann Gat
···@jpl.nasa.gov
* Erann Gat
| Yes it is. Software isn't made of matter. (The media in which software
| resides are made of matter, but the software itself is not.) The
| "physics" of software are different from the physics of material objects.
This is completely bogus. There is no physical way to separate software
from the medium. Copying it requires a physical process, just like any
other physical object does. The so-called "abstraction" of meaning is no
different from that performed by illuminating a page full of ink blots
and understanding the reflected photons as letters and words and meaning
in some language the reader understands. However, both the books and the
literature contained in them are physically existing objects. Software
is just like that literature. Again, it is only because it is convenient
to some political and ideological ends that software is somehow regarded
as this mystical, non-physical, magical thing. It is, in fact, not true.
| > In the case of GNU GPL'ed stuff, they can, in theory, force me to
| > give away stuff that is not related to the object whose license I have
| > supposedly violated.
|
| No, they can't. From the GPL paragraph 2:
|
| If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
| and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
| themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
| sections when you distribute them as separate works.
Sigh. The context here is when the GNU GPL applies but is violated,
obviously not when it does not apply, so the context was _obviously_ when
distributing them not as separate works, but together. It is _not_ the
intention, nor the letter of the GNU GPL, to make it possible for people
to separate works from eachother merely because they violate the license.
So, if you distribute them together and thus fall under the license
agreement, you have to give it away because you have violated the license.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> * Erann Gat
> | Yes it is. Software isn't made of matter. (The media in which software
> | resides are made of matter, but the software itself is not.) The
> | "physics" of software are different from the physics of material objects.
>
> This is completely bogus. There is no physical way to separate software
> from the medium. Copying it requires a physical process, just like any
> other physical object does. The so-called "abstraction" of meaning is no
> different from that performed by illuminating a page full of ink blots
> and understanding the reflected photons as letters and words and meaning
> in some language the reader understands. However, both the books and the
> literature contained in them are physically existing objects. Software
> is just like that literature. Again, it is only because it is convenient
> to some political and ideological ends that software is somehow regarded
> as this mystical, non-physical, magical thing. It is, in fact, not true.
I agree, software is not much different from literature. It is, however,
different from, say, a car. The difference is this: it is possible to
take the information content of a book and render it in a computer in a
way that does not lose the book's essential value. That is not possible
with a car. No matter how I render a car's information content in a
computer it loses (at least some of) its essential value in that it can no
longer physically transport me from place to place.
> | > In the case of GNU GPL'ed stuff, they can, in theory, force me to
> | > give away stuff that is not related to the object whose license I have
> | > supposedly violated.
> |
> | No, they can't. From the GPL paragraph 2:
> |
> | If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
> | and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> | themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> | sections when you distribute them as separate works.
>
> Sigh. The context here is when the GNU GPL applies but is violated,
> obviously not when it does not apply, so the context was _obviously_ when
> distributing them not as separate works, but together. It is _not_ the
> intention, nor the letter of the GNU GPL, to make it possible for people
> to separate works from eachother merely because they violate the license.
> So, if you distribute them together and thus fall under the license
> agreement, you have to give it away because you have violated the license.
Distributing something "as a separate work" does not mean that you have to
distribute it separately, you just have to identify it as a separate work
with its own licence. (That's how bundled software works.)
In any case, I don't see how "they can force [you] to give away stuff that
is not related" because if it's not related then, as you say, the licence
does not apply. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "not
related."
E.
* Erann Gat
| The difference is this: it is possible to take the information content of
| a book and render it in a computer in a way that does not lose the book's
| essential value.
This begs the question of why a computer is so special. What, exactly,
makes electricity non-real? What kind of magic wand does a computer
possess that makes that which is stored within it _materially_ different
from any other reality? The fact that we can no longer _see_ it is no
different from a lot of other very real things that we cannot see.
And who _values_ things? How come a particular aspect of a book is
designated an "essential value" just because a computer can retain it?
If I model a car down to its smallest details in some form that is not
usable as a car, but from which a working car may again be built, it is
completely irrelevant to the owners of the car design that I had a
non-usable intermediate model. The same goes for books, actually, and
whether the intermediate, non-book model can be _read_ through _yet_
another duplication process is also irrelevant.
We can already give industrial robots computerized drawings of a lot of
things and they will happily reproduce them faithfully. The _amount_ of
work that goes into the duplication process is completely immaterial.
The fact that _some_ work is required is the essential issue.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> * Erann Gat
> | The difference is this: it is possible to take the information content of
> | a book and render it in a computer in a way that does not lose the book's
> | essential value.
>
> This begs the question of why a computer is so special. What, exactly,
> makes electricity non-real? What kind of magic wand does a computer
> possess that makes that which is stored within it _materially_ different
> from any other reality? The fact that we can no longer _see_ it is no
> different from a lot of other very real things that we cannot see.
I never said electricity isn't real. Electricity is just as real as
anything else. But *bits* aren't "real" in the sense that computers,
electricity, cars, ink, and paper are real. Electrons and silicon atoms
are *things*. They have mass. They obey conservation laws. Bit's are
not things. They do not have mass. They do not obey conservation laws.
Bits *states* of things. (Sometimes they aren't even states of things,
but merely correlations between states of things.)
Put another way (this point has been made before by another poster, but it
bears repeating) there is a fundamental distinction between energy and
information. Energy (or mass) is the stuff that things are made of.
Information is the configuration or the state of the stuff. The value of
some things, like raw materials, lies mostly in their energy content, not
their information content. It's the *stuff*, not the arrangement of the
stuff that matters. The value of other things, like cars, lies in a
combination of their energy and information content. The fact that there
is steel and plastic there matters, but the particular arrangement of the
steel and plastic matters too.
I'll answer what makes computers special below.
> And who _values_ things? How come a particular aspect of a book is
> designated an "essential value" just because a computer can retain it?
People value things. And while I don't have any hard data, I'll wager
long odds that most people assign most of the value of most books to their
information content and not to their physical embodiments. If you had a
choice between having all your books changed to a different physical
format, or retaining the same physical format but translated into some
language you didn't understand, which would you choose?
> If I model a car down to its smallest details in some form that is not
> usable as a car, but from which a working car may again be built, it is
> completely irrelevant to the owners of the car design that I had a
> non-usable intermediate model. The same goes for books, actually, and
> whether the intermediate, non-book model can be _read_ through _yet_
> another duplication process is also irrelevant.
>
> We can already give industrial robots computerized drawings of a lot of
> things and they will happily reproduce them faithfully. The _amount_ of
> work that goes into the duplication process is completely immaterial.
> The fact that _some_ work is required is the essential issue.
I disagree. What makes computers special is precisely the amount of work
(energy) required to add information content. That amount is vastly less
-- many, many orders of magnitude less -- than for non-computer artifacts,
even if they are fabricated by robots.
E.
* Erann Gat
| But *bits* aren't "real" in the sense that computers, electricity, cars,
| ink, and paper are real. Electrons and silicon atoms are *things*. They
| have mass. They obey conservation laws. Bit's are not things.
What is a bit? Can you explain what it is?
| They do not have mass.
Well, is a thought real? Or is it mystical? Is it ideal? Is my idea
that bits are real real? Is the expression of that idea real? Which of
these have mass?
| Put another way (this point has been made before by another poster, but
| it bears repeating) there is a fundamental distinction between energy and
| information.
Nonsense. I politely asked the poster if he could explain the purposes
for which this distinction is useful, but you go ahead and say there is a
fundamental distinction, and that is simply _wrong_, unphilosophical, and
begs the question, which I think you do not realize, but would if you
thought about this instead of defending an unsupportable notion.
| Energy (or mass) is the stuff that things are made of. Information is
| the configuration or the state of the stuff.
Does magnetism have mass? Is it "energy"? How about gravitation? Does
_distances_ exist? Do distancaes have mass?
| People value things. And while I don't have any hard data, I'll wager
| long odds that most people assign most of the value of most books to
| their information content and not to their physical embodiments.
Philosophy meets democracy. What a wonderful way to think!
| If you had a choice between having all your books changed to a different
| physical format, or retaining the same physical format but translated
| into some language you didn't understand, which would you choose?
If you had a cube and you could choose between retaining all the edges or
all the sides, which would you choose?
| What makes computers special is precisely the amount of work (energy)
| required to add information content. That amount is vastly less -- many,
| many orders of magnitude less -- than for non-computer artifacts, even if
| they are fabricated by robots.
So again, we have an economy-based ontological ordering. I am amused,
frankly. It is so ridiculously obvious that this must be wrong, simply
by looking at where _values_ are in the order of things. How can you at
all _believe_ in economy as an ontological primary? Even rabid marxists
do not actually believe in that, if _they_ still exist.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> What is a bit? Can you explain what it is?
Yes, I can.
> | They do not have mass.
>
> Well, is a thought real? Or is it mystical? Is it ideal? Is my idea
> that bits are real real? Is the expression of that idea real? Which of
> these have mass?
Who knows? Who cares? This isn't about whether things are "real" or not
(I honestly don't know what that means, which is why I put the word in
scare quotes and qualified my intention). This is about whether or not
there are useful distinctions to be made. I claim that there is a useful
distinction to be made between electrons, computers, books, cars, ink
etc. on the one hand, and bits, thoughts, ideas, etc. on the other, i.e.
that there is a useful distinction between energy and information.
Whether you choose to use the label of "reality" to identify this
distinction I really don't care.
> | Put another way (this point has been made before by another poster, but
> | it bears repeating) there is a fundamental distinction between energy and
> | information.
>
> Nonsense. I politely asked the poster if he could explain the purposes
> for which this distinction is useful, but you go ahead and say there is a
> fundamental distinction, and that is simply _wrong_, unphilosophical, and
> begs the question, which I think you do not realize, but would if you
> thought about this instead of defending an unsupportable notion.
The purpose for which the distinction is useful is to identify the
applicable laws that govern their respective behaviors. They are
different.
> | Energy (or mass) is the stuff that things are made of. Information is
> | the configuration or the state of the stuff.
>
> Does magnetism have mass? Is it "energy"? How about gravitation? Does
> _distances_ exist? Do distancaes have mass?
"Magnetism" and "gravitation" are not really well defined terms in the
realm of physics. (Does Common Lisp have mass?) Magnetic fields and
regions of curved spacetime have energy content and therefore mass. But
we are getting far afield here.
> | People value things. And while I don't have any hard data, I'll wager
> | long odds that most people assign most of the value of most books to
> | their information content and not to their physical embodiments.
>
> Philosophy meets democracy. What a wonderful way to think!
Thank you.
> | What makes computers special is precisely the amount of work (energy)
> | required to add information content. That amount is vastly less -- many,
> | many orders of magnitude less -- than for non-computer artifacts, even if
> | they are fabricated by robots.
>
> So again, we have an economy-based ontological ordering. I am amused,
> frankly. It is so ridiculously obvious that this must be wrong, simply
> by looking at where _values_ are in the order of things. How can you at
> all _believe_ in economy as an ontological primary? Even rabid marxists
> do not actually believe in that, if _they_ still exist.
I don't know what you mean by "ontological primary" (the "primary" part, I
know what ontological means) nor "looking at where values are in the order
of things."
Yes, I am basing my distinctions at least to some extent on economic
concepts. (It's not just economic -- there are physical (in the sense of
Physics) distinctions too.) I don't know how you can coherently deal with
the world without referring to economic concepts. The very notion of a
*useful* distinction is inherently economic. A thing is useful if it has
utility. Utility is an economic concept. Sorry, but that's how I think.
I don't believe I'm alone in this.
Tell me: do you believe that there is a useful distinction to be made
between a steam engine and a tea kettle? If so, how do you make this
distiction without an ontology based at least to some extent on economy?
E.
* Erik Naggum
| What is a bit? Can you explain what it is?
* Erann Gat
| Yes, I can.
Well, it seems that this sets the tone and the level of your discourse.
| I don't know how you can coherently deal with the world without referring
| to economic concepts.
I do not know how that idiotic remark could come from anything I said.
| The very notion of a *useful* distinction is inherently economic.
And "economic" is inherently based on a long, long chain of arguments,
values, ontologies, scarcity and abundance, etc, etc. In a sense,
everything and nothing is "inherently" economic in nature. As the basis
of a concept, theory, ontology, basically anything, "economic" begs the
question of what it is, how it relates to other things, and how to deal
with it. "Economic" says _nothing_.
| A thing is useful if it has utility. Utility is an economic concept.
| Sorry, but that's how I think. I don't believe I'm alone in this.
No, I certainly also believe you are not alone in thinking so.
| Tell me: do you believe that there is a useful distinction to be made
| between a steam engine and a tea kettle? If so, how do you make this
| distiction without an ontology based at least to some extent on economy?
By basing it something else, of course. (In keeping with your stupid
response to my first question, which you effectively dodged, I do not
intend to waste my time answering an unserious quibbler.) However, I
find it rather _amusing_ that you think you can actually _base_ an
ontology on economics, but this is just game-playing on your part, right?
I _know_ you are not the idiot you work very hard to sound like here.
I suggest a book that I think you may find a bit more _challenging_ than
continuing the stupid games you like to play with me:
David R. Koepsell: The Ontology of Cyberspace; Law, Philosophy, and the
Future of Intellectual Property. Open Court, 2000. ISBN 0-8126-9423-6.
It is only 130 pages. It should take no more than a few hours to read,
but may take a _long_ time to grasp fully, especiall if you are one of
the mystical kind who have already decided that software is _not_ real.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
> | I don't know how you can coherently deal with the world without referring
> | to economic concepts.
>
> I do not know how that idiotic remark could come from anything I said.
It came from this:
* Erik Naggum
> So again, we have an economy-based ontological ordering. I am amused,
> frankly. It is so ridiculously obvious that this must be wrong, simply
> by looking at where _values_ are in the order of things. How can you at
> all _believe_ in economy as an ontological primary? Even rabid marxists
> do not actually believe in that, if _they_ still exist.
Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "economy-based ontological
ordering."
> | The very notion of a *useful* distinction is inherently economic.
>
> And "economic" is inherently based on a long, long chain of arguments,
> values, ontologies, scarcity and abundance, etc, etc. In a sense,
> everything and nothing is "inherently" economic in nature.
No. The concept of utility is inherently economic, but there are many
things that are not inherently economic.
> As the basis
> of a concept, theory, ontology, basically anything, "economic" begs the
> question of what it is, how it relates to other things, and how to deal
> with it. "Economic" says _nothing_.
Some economists might disagree.
> | Tell me: do you believe that there is a useful distinction to be made
> | between a steam engine and a tea kettle? If so, how do you make this
> | distiction without an ontology based at least to some extent on economy?
>
> By basing it something else, of course. (In keeping with your stupid
> response to my first question, which you effectively dodged, I do not
> intend to waste my time answering an unserious quibbler.)
But you expect me to waste my time explaining information theory to you.
Sounds like a bit (no pun intended) of a double standard.
> However, I
> find it rather _amusing_ that you think you can actually _base_ an
> ontology on economics, but this is just game-playing on your part, right?
> I _know_ you are not the idiot you work very hard to sound like here.
Well, thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
> I suggest a book that I think you may find a bit more _challenging_ than
> continuing the stupid games you like to play with me:
I don't know. My goal is to figure out how to hold a discussion with you
that doesn't turn into a stupid game. I am finding that to be quite
challenging indeeed.
> David R. Koepsell: The Ontology of Cyberspace; Law, Philosophy, and the
> Future of Intellectual Property. Open Court, 2000. ISBN 0-8126-9423-6.
>
> It is only 130 pages. It should take no more than a few hours to read,
> but may take a _long_ time to grasp fully, especiall if you are one of
> the mystical kind who have already decided that software is _not_ real.
Thanks for the reference.
E.
* ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat)
| My goal is to figure out how to hold a discussion with you that doesn't
| turn into a stupid game.
Your _goal_ is the very definition of playing a stupid game with people.
No wonder you keep reaching the same conclusion over and over again.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Erann Gat
> | Yes it is. Software isn't made of matter. (The media in which software
> | resides are made of matter, but the software itself is not.) The
> | "physics" of software are different from the physics of material objects.
>
> This is completely bogus. There is no physical way to separate software
> from the medium. Copying it requires a physical process, just like any
> other physical object does.
> [SNIP]
>
>
> However, both the books and the
> literature contained in them are physically existing objects. Software
> is just like that literature. Again, it is only because it is convenient
> to some political and ideological ends that software is somehow regarded
> as this mystical, non-physical, magical thing. It is, in fact, not true.
I don't understand this argument. Surely the `literature' is not
"the glyphs on the piece of paper"? Surely the `software' is not
"the alignment of magnetic domains on a piece of metal"?
Clearly, literature and software share a property with each other that
they do not share with loaves of bread: the ability to be reproduced
(or transferred to a new owner) at little or no cost, without
depriving the original owner of the possession of the object. (Think
memorizing poems in an oral tradition, for example.)
Indeed, the assignment of monetary value to something _so_ intangible
is one of the turning points of modern economies, IMO.
I do not understand the physical nature of software (nor of literature).
Could you elaborate/clarify?
--
It would be difficult to construe Larry Wall, in article
this as a feature. <·····················@netlabs.com>
Alain Picard <·······@optushome.com.au> writes:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> > * Erann Gat
> > | Yes it is. Software isn't made of matter. (The media in which software
> > | resides are made of matter, but the software itself is not.) The
> > | "physics" of software are different from the physics of material objects.
> >
> > This is completely bogus. There is no physical way to separate software
> > from the medium. Copying it requires a physical process, just like any
> > other physical object does.
> > [SNIP]
> >
> >
> > However, both the books and the
> > literature contained in them are physically existing objects. Software
> > is just like that literature. Again, it is only because it is convenient
> > to some political and ideological ends that software is somehow regarded
> > as this mystical, non-physical, magical thing. It is, in fact, not true.
>
> I don't understand this argument. Surely the `literature' is not
> "the glyphs on the piece of paper"? Surely the `software' is not
> "the alignment of magnetic domains on a piece of metal"?
>
> Clearly, literature and software share a property with each other that
> they do not share with loaves of bread: the ability to be reproduced
> (or transferred to a new owner) at little or no cost, without
> depriving the original owner of the possession of the object. (Think
> memorizing poems in an oral tradition, for example.)
>
> Indeed, the assignment of monetary value to something _so_ intangible
> is one of the turning points of modern economies, IMO.
>
> I do not understand the physical nature of software (nor of literature).
> Could you elaborate/clarify?
As I see it -- the cost of copying is irrelevant to the software
existence. And you cannot have the software without a medium to keep
it on. This is in short what I unerstood and it explains a lot of
things I have not thought about.
--
Janis Dzerins
Eat shit -- billions of flies can't be wrong.
Janis Dzerins <·····@latnet.lv> writes:
> Alain Picard <·······@optushome.com.au> writes:
>
> > Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> >
> > > * Erann Gat
> > > | Yes it is. Software isn't made of matter. (The media in which software
> > > | resides are made of matter, but the software itself is not.) The
> > > | "physics" of software are different from the physics of material objects.
> > >
> > > This is completely bogus. There is no physical way to separate software
> > > from the medium. Copying it requires a physical process, just like any
> > > other physical object does.
> > > [SNIP]
> > >
> > >
> > > However, both the books and the
> > > literature contained in them are physically existing objects. Software
> > > is just like that literature. Again, it is only because it is convenient
> > > to some political and ideological ends that software is somehow regarded
> > > as this mystical, non-physical, magical thing. It is, in fact, not true.
> >
> > I don't understand this argument. Surely the `literature' is not
> > "the glyphs on the piece of paper"? Surely the `software' is not
> > "the alignment of magnetic domains on a piece of metal"?
> >
> > Clearly, literature and software share a property with each other that
> > they do not share with loaves of bread: the ability to be reproduced
> > (or transferred to a new owner) at little or no cost, without
> > depriving the original owner of the possession of the object. (Think
> > memorizing poems in an oral tradition, for example.)
> >
> > Indeed, the assignment of monetary value to something _so_ intangible
> > is one of the turning points of modern economies, IMO.
> >
> > I do not understand the physical nature of software (nor of literature).
> > Could you elaborate/clarify?
>
> As I see it -- the cost of copying is irrelevant to the software
> existence. And you cannot have the software without a medium to keep
> it on. This is in short what I unerstood and it explains a lot of
> things I have not thought about.
Making software is somewhat like making an automobile in that making
the first instance is _frightfully_ expensive.
Apparently designing an all-new automobile costs on the order of a
billion dollars.
In both cases, making successive copies is rather a lot less
expensive. For software, there's the difference that the result, a
form of "digital knowledge," can _trivially_ be copied, generally at
minscule cost, whereas for automobiles, there is the requirement of
having a factory, and bringing in parts and such. Software
distribution can involve no transfer of physical material, only the
transfer of the resonance of moving electrons/photons.
The crucial difference seems to be that making extra copies of
software doesn't have to cause any noticeable disturbance, whilst for
cars, toasters, or digital watches, there is a difference of
materiels. Whether that represents a material difference may be in
the eye of the beholder...
As always, analogies involving automobiles are fatal...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ····················@" "454aa"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/languages.html
"Cars move huge weights at high speeds by controlling violent
explosions many times a second. ...car analogies are always fatal..."
-- <········@my-dejanews.com>
* Alain Picard <·······@optushome.com.au>
| Clearly, literature and software share a property with each other that
| they do not share with loaves of bread: the ability to be reproduced (or
| transferred to a new owner) at little or no cost, without depriving the
| original owner of the possession of the object. (Think memorizing poems
| in an oral tradition, for example.)
This is because _somebody_ is willing to supply the electricity and the
hardware that does the copying. Suppose I supplied all the ingredients
of a loaf of bread and the energy and hardware required to mix them and
bake the result, then it would essentially be free to copy a loaf of
bread, right? Suppose we had lots of people who had vast stores of
ingredients and an enormous surplus of energy and unlimited access to
hardware, what would materially differ between a loaf of bread and a
piece of software as we see it today? Hinging the issue on _cost_ is no
more than a means of relating it to the surplus of the ingredients in the
economy. Then again, an incredibly large fraction of science fiction can
be summarized in the very simple idea "what if energy were free?".
| Indeed, the assignment of monetary value to something _so_ intangible is
| one of the turning points of modern economies, IMO.
It is no less intangible than anything else we assign monetary values to.
It is just that we have decided at some particular time, not to think
about certain real, physical things as "tangible", even though they are.
| I do not understand the physical nature of software (nor of literature).
| Could you elaborate/clarify?
Perhaps we should dispell with the equivocation first. There exists a
notion of "meaning" that is that which is obtained when a human being is
exposed to something and experiences something, and this "meaning" is
often considered to be the _real_ purpose of something, the medium
somehow being discounted as being irrelevant. This is just like the idea
that in computer programming languages, syntax is irrelevant, because
some make the confusion between "no _particular_ syntax is reqeuired",
and "_no_ syntax is required", because, clearly, _some_ syntax _is_
required. The same is true of software and literature -- without medium,
it ceases to exist. Also, clearly, the medium is not the software or the
literature, but this is the same argument as software for a different
machine or literature in a different language or script. If it has no
meaning, what _is_ it, when only its meaning is valuable? When the last
person to read a language dies, does all the literature of that language
become non-existent?
Simply put, an interaction between two physical things is also physical,
even though it ceases to exist if you remove some of the physical things,
so you cannot take something apart to "find" it. Gravitation is real.
Magnetism is real. Software is real. It took physicists several hundred
years from discovery of the consequences of the interaction to figure out
how these interactions had a nature of their own. Culturally, we are
still looking at software like the kind of "magic" that people who do not
understand the nature of magnetism and gravitation would think they are.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, "Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
> * Alain Picard <·······@optushome.com.au> | Clearly, literature and
> software share a property with each other that | they do not share with
> loaves of bread: the ability to be reproduced (or | transferred to a new
> owner) at little or no cost, without depriving the | original owner of
> the possession of the object. (Think memorizing poems | in an oral
> tradition, for example.)
>
> This is because _somebody_ is willing to supply the electricity and
> the hardware that does the copying. Suppose I supplied all the
> ingredients of a loaf of bread and the energy and hardware required to
> mix them and bake the result, then it would essentially be free to
> copy a loaf of bread, right? Suppose we had lots of people who had
> vast stores of ingredients and an enormous surplus of energy and
> unlimited access to hardware, what would materially differ between a
> loaf of bread and a piece of software as we see it today? Hinging the
> issue on _cost_ is no more than a means of relating it to the surplus
> of the ingredients in the economy. Then again, an incredibly large
> fraction of science fiction can be summarized in the very simple idea
> "what if energy were free?".
The energy and materials are not supplied for free by some third party.
People buy their own computers, and pay for the electricity to run them,
and pay for the network connections to connect them. These are all scarce
items, and have the property that there is a free market (approximately)
for the items.
So by making a copy of a CD (for example) I deprive no-one of anything
that they were not compensated fairly for (at market price) yet I get at
small total cost, an identical copy of the information stored on that CD,
as well as a physical approximate copy of the artifact, for a net marginal
cost of about 1 dollar US.
>This is just like the
> idea that in computer programming languages, syntax is irrelevant,
> because some make the confusion between "no _particular_ syntax is
> reqeuired", and "_no_ syntax is required", because, clearly, _some_
> syntax _is_ required. The same is true of software and literature --
> without medium, it ceases to exist. Also, clearly, the medium is not
> the software or the literature, but this is the same argument as
> software for a different machine or literature in a different language
> or script. If it has no meaning, what _is_ it, when only its meaning
> is valuable? When the last person to read a language dies, does all
> the literature of that language become non-existent?
The market value of the medium can't be what you're getting at though.
It's a complete false start. The only reason one can charge say $15 US for
a CD is because of the monopoly value of the information stored on that
CD. The alternative would be around $0.50 US.
I think the whole thing comes down to people saying that the political
notion of creating a government guaranteed monopoly on information is not
beneficial economically, contrary to free-market economics, and the wrong
way for producers of these goods to be compensated, in large part because
of the jack booted enforcement required to make it effective in an age
when the actual market cost of copies is a few pennies.
One obvious alternative is to create a financial futures market in
informational goods, and to sell forward contracts on the delivery of such
goods to the people who want the goods. This requires no jack booted
thugs, and no restrictions on the use or redistribution of the goods after
delivery. And no artificial market destruction by government protection...
It also provides a way to enforce delivery or compensation for
non-delivery through well understood contract and tort laws.
There probably are alternatives though.
* Daniel Lakeland
| So by making a copy of a CD (for example) I deprive no-one of anything [...]
It seems that some people consider property as "that which you can
deprive other people of". This is commensurate with the "all property is
theft" line of reasoning, but it is fundamentally silly and offers no way
to reason about property.
| The market value of the medium can't be what you're getting at though.
No, you are quite right, it is not.
| It's a complete false start.
Then it is a really good idea not to think people begin with completely
false starts. It make a conversion _so_ much more intelligent if people
would not assume that the other party is an utter moron and believes
easily refutable positions. It is fantastically annoying when people do
believe in the easily refuable and do not stop doing so even after it has
been refuted, repeatedly.
| I think the whole thing comes down [economics].
The value system of any economy is founded on the ontology of the objects
valued and people's willingness to prioritize their acquistion. Starting
with economics is like studying language by watching how people react
emotionally to each word or phrase. It may give you some information,
but what you learn form it is not _meaning_.
It is _not_ the economy.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, "Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
> * Daniel Lakeland
> | So by making a copy of a CD (for example) I deprive no-one of anything
> [...]
>
> It seems that some people consider property as "that which you can
> deprive other people of". This is commensurate with the "all property
> is theft" line of reasoning, but it is fundamentally silly and offers
> no way to reason about property.
Your previous argument was based on the notion of someone giving away for
free (ie. being deprived of) electrons or flour and water (bread
ingredients). You seemed to be making the analogy that in fact making
copies of information/software was tantamount to making copies of bread
under the assumption that there was some large free resource of
ingredients around.
I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying. The fact of the matter
is that none of the ingredients of a COPY of a piece of software are
"free" they are just cheap because of our current market conditions.
Now the original creation is still limited by time and effort on the part
of the designers, programmers, and soforth.
On the other hand I haven't heard anyone argue that in the conditions
described (a large free source of ingredients) the making and eating of
copies of some loaf of bread should be punishable by several hundred
thousand dollars in fines and various jail sentences. That is what we are
talking about when we consider copyright enforcement.
The common notion of property torts under the law is that when one person
is deprived of their property, then there is a legally enforceable
recourse under law. That is where the notion of deprivation comes in.
Without deprivation there is no tort.
So what is it that you believe should be considered a
tort/deprivation/damage?
> Then it is a really good idea not to think people begin with
> completely false starts. It make a conversion _so_ much more
> intelligent if people would not assume that the other party is an
> utter moron and believes easily refutable positions. It is
> fantastically annoying when people do believe in the easily refuable
> and do not stop doing so even after it has been refuted, repeatedly.
I don't want to argue whether you are an utter moron. Clearly you aren't,
and I never intended to imply that. I merely pointed out that though you
seemed to be defending the notion that the medium's physical reality was
important for your argument, there must be something ELSE about your
argument that doesn't involve the value of the medium, but I couldn't
exactly see what it was.
> | I think the whole thing comes down [economics].
>
> The value system of any economy is founded on the ontology of the
> objects valued and people's willingness to prioritize their
> acquistion. Starting with economics is like studying language by
> watching how people react emotionally to each word or phrase. It may
> give you some information, but what you learn form it is not
> _meaning_.
This seems a bit abstruse.
> It is _not_ the economy.
What isn't?
Perhaps it would help if you re-iterated your argument in concise form.
Because I'm afraid (at least to me) it isn't clear.
* Daniel Lakeland
| Your previous argument was based on the notion of someone giving away for
| free (ie. being deprived of) electrons or flour and water (bread
| ingredients).
Nope. (I do not subscribe to the "property is theft" notion at all and
do not even understand how "giving away" relates to "being deprived of".)
| You seemed to be making the analogy that in fact making copies of
| information/software was tantamount to making copies of bread under the
| assumption that there was some large free resource of ingredients around.
Not at all. I was pointing out that the resources used to duplicate bits
are _not_ free by asking "what if" those resources that supposedly meke
the difference between bits and a loaf of bread were _also_ paid for by
the party who claimed the duplication was "free". In other words,
duplication of software is "free" because somebody already paid for it.
Such hidden costs are rampant in information technology and "cyberspace".
The Internet is an _enormously_ expensive infrastructure, so I find it
very, very odd that using it is considered "free" in the pecuniary sense.
| The fact of the matter is that none of the ingredients of a COPY of a
| piece of software are "free" they are just cheap because of our current
| market conditions.
They are not even cheap, it is just harder to think in terms of _total_
cost when the _incremental_ cost is so different in magnitude.
| Now the original creation is still limited by time and effort on the part
| of the designers, programmers, and soforth.
Precisely, and since it takes X amount of money to build something, but
close to nothing to make _another_ copy when it has already been made,
some people mistakenly believe that a copy costs close to nothing. A
copy costs X divided by the number of copies that may contribute to the
recovery of the costs. If you copy something like this without being
part of the number of copies that could help recover the costs, you may
look at this as stealing from the creator or all the paying users who
have to pay more for their copies.
| On the other hand I haven't heard anyone argue that in the conditions
| described (a large free source of ingredients) the making and eating of
| copies of some loaf of bread should be punishable by several hundred
| thousand dollars in fines and various jail sentences. That is what we
| are talking about when we consider copyright enforcement.
Since the only "large free source of ingredients" that actually exists is
funds for various causes usually available from the government or some
organization that sets a number of conditions for is dissemination, we do
in fact have serious legal action applicable to those who defraud such
pools of resources.
| The common notion of property torts under the law is that when one person
| is deprived of their property, then there is a legally enforceable
| recourse under law. That is where the notion of deprivation comes in.
| Without deprivation there is no tort.
Do you _really_ believe that unless it is punishable by law it is OK to
do it? This is really interesting. I know Bill Gates has that view of
the world, but _real_ people? Come on!
| So what is it that you believe should be considered a
| tort/deprivation/damage?
Explaiend a few paragraphs above.
| I don't want to argue whether you are an utter moron. Clearly you
| aren't, and I never intended to imply that. I merely pointed out that
| though you seemed to be defending the notion that the medium's physical
| reality was important for your argument, there must be something ELSE
| about your argument that doesn't involve the value of the medium, but I
| couldn't exactly see what it was.
That something needs a medium to be communicated does not imply that the
value of that thing is the value of the medium. I fail to see how this
even could come up. It probably stems from a wildly different way to
categorize existents that may or may not have its root cause in the
desire to see software and "information" as magical and unreal.
| Perhaps it would help if you re-iterated your argument in concise form.
| Because I'm afraid (at least to me) it isn't clear.
"There is no material difference between the creation and duplication of
software/information and any other object."
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, "Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
(pardon me if I cross post this to gnu.misc.discuss it seems appropriate
there. For those who have missed it, the thread started on comp.lang.lisp)
> Not at all. I was pointing out that the resources used to duplicate
> bits are _not_ free by asking "what if" those resources that
> supposedly meke the difference between bits and a loaf of bread were
> _also_ paid for by the party who claimed the duplication was "free".
> In other words, duplication of software is "free" because somebody
> already paid for it. Such hidden costs are rampant in information
> technology and "cyberspace". The Internet is an _enormously_ expensive
> infrastructure, so I find it very, very odd that using it is
> considered "free" in the pecuniary sense.
Duplication is cheap because the marginal market cost of the materials and
energy that go into making one duplicate is small. When I say cheap I mean
"has a low market price".
> | The fact of the matter is that none of the ingredients of a COPY of a
> | piece of software are "free" they are just cheap because of our
> current | market conditions.
>
> They are not even cheap, it is just harder to think in terms of
> _total_ cost when the _incremental_ cost is so different in magnitude.
The ingredients of a copy are:
1) media, relatively cheap for CDs
2) Time on a working computer.
3) Access to an artifact that contains the data (ie a CD).
Unfortunately there is no free market for Access so there is no actual
price. In a free market system, the FIRST copy would be expensive, and
every copy afterwards would be cheap.
This is what my futures market on software idea is about, allowing those
who produce software to contract with those who would consume it, in order
to create a fair market price for the production of that software. The
producers would set a price at which they would be willing to produce the
software, and would sell *the act of producing* the software to the
consumers who would pay what it was worth to them. The producers would be
bound by contract to create the product, and the consumers would have
legal recourse for breach of contract. Of course the consumers would be
bound to pay, or pre-pay, whatever. No-one would have to participate who
didn't want to.
Unfortunately this system has a hard time competing with Copyright because
it raises the initial price of individual works of software, though I
believe it would reduce the cost of using software globally, and
individually when computing the total cost to an individual of the
software used by that person (since most people would only pay for the
software they most needed, and would make legal, morally condonable copies
of software that was convenient but not high priority to them).
I find this far more morally acceptable than government enforcement of
copyright.
> Since the only "large free source of ingredients" that actually exists
> is funds for various causes usually available from the government or
> some organization that sets a number of conditions for is
> dissemination, we do in fact have serious legal action applicable to
> those who defraud such pools of resources.
There is nothing "free" about taxation and redistribution, or grants
(which are contracts), let me clarify, what I mean is "non-economic" ie
globally non-scarce and essentially zero priced in any free market. Since
there can't be a free market (for my definition of free market) on
proceeds of taxation this is a non-sequitur.
> | The common notion of property torts under the law is that when one
> person | is deprived of their property, then there is a legally
> enforceable | recourse under law. That is where the notion of
> deprivation comes in. | Without deprivation there is no tort.
>
> Do you _really_ believe that unless it is punishable by law it is OK
> to do it? This is really interesting. I know Bill Gates has that
> view of the world, but _real_ people? Come on!
No, and I don't see what gave you that impression. I do believe that
unless it's punishable by law, it's NOT ok to haul people away to jail for
it and/or fine them enormous amounts of money, or otherwise deprive them
of life/liberty.
Even if it is against the law it still might not be OK to punish people.
(there are bad laws).
Of course it might be wrong to do something that is perfectly legal as
well.
So the core of my argument goes like this:
1) Artificially enforced monopolies are immoral.
2) Copyright creates an artificially enforced monopoly.
3) Copyright is immoral.
You may have a different view of things.
From: Ed L Cashin
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <m3k7x2mv3f.fsf@terry.uga.edu>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Daniel Lakeland
...
> | I don't want to argue whether you are an utter moron. Clearly you
> | aren't, and I never intended to imply that. I merely pointed out that
> | though you seemed to be defending the notion that the medium's physical
> | reality was important for your argument, there must be something ELSE
> | about your argument that doesn't involve the value of the medium, but I
> | couldn't exactly see what it was.
>
> That something needs a medium to be communicated does not imply that the
> value of that thing is the value of the medium. I fail to see how this
> even could come up.
Something you said on Monday in the context of the value of
information seemed to use the obvious reality of the medium as a way
to refute the supposedly ephemeral nature of information:
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Erann Gat
> | Yes it is. Software isn't made of matter. (The media in which software
> | resides are made of matter, but the software itself is not.) The
> | "physics" of software are different from the physics of material objects.
>
> This is completely bogus. There is no physical way to separate software
> from the medium.
--
--Ed Cashin integrit file-verification system:
·······@terry.uga.edu http://integrit.sourceforge.net/
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
* Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu>
| Something you said on Monday in the context of the value of information
| seemed to use the obvious reality of the medium as a way to refute the
| supposedly ephemeral nature of information:
Could you explain _how_ you got from this to the "value of the medium"
conclusion"? I have not talked about the value of information, by the
way, nor has it been a context in this discussion. All I have argued is
that the idea of software being "intangible" is bogus, because software
is as real as anything else we trade. Now we see people talking about
the value of information, the uselessness of laws to protect the value of
information since it can be copied to easily, and even quantum physics
and "energy vs information" mumbo-jumbo. It is frankly pretty amazing.
It is a fairly simple philosophical question, with a non-trivial answer,
but all these weird consequences and presuppositions make it impossible
to discuss it from an interesting angle.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
From: Ed L Cashin
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <m37kt2dpsb.fsf@terry.uga.edu>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu>
> | Something you said on Monday in the context of the value of information
> | seemed to use the obvious reality of the medium as a way to refute the
> | supposedly ephemeral nature of information:
>
> Could you explain _how_ you got from this to the "value of the medium"
> conclusion"? I have not talked about the value of information, by the
> way, nor has it been a context in this discussion. All I have argued is
> that the idea of software being "intangible" is bogus, because software
> is as real as anything else we trade.
My mistake. I thought that your point in arguing for the materiality
of information was to strengthen the position that it was a "thing"
that can be owned (and have value).
--
--Ed Cashin integrit file-verification system:
·······@terry.uga.edu http://integrit.sourceforge.net/
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
* Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu>
| My mistake. I thought that your point in arguing for the materiality
| of information was to strengthen the position that it was a "thing"
| that can be owned (and have value).
Starting a debate with the possible consequences of the arguments gets
you nowhere. It is instead a _very_ useful technique to derail any and
all real discussion.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> Simply put, an interaction between two physical things is also physical,
> even though it ceases to exist if you remove some of the physical things,
So, you are saying that because "meaning" only has meaning within
the human mind, which is _necessarily_ made of matter, that it is
incorrect to view the world as a duality between matter and information?
I'm trying hard to understand your point here. I'm gonna have to split
a lot of hair to make sure I've got it just right. I don't want to debate
your view until I'm sure I understand it.
> Culturally, we are still looking at software like the kind of
> "magic" that people who do not understand the nature of magnetism
> and gravitation would think they are.
Well, no. Culturally, we (or, rather, many of us) view software as
literature, and programmers as authors, i.e. very special, talented
people who can conjure wonderful things from within their brains.
Shakespeare wasn't a magician, he was a genius.
And, of course, physicists do _not_ understand the nature of magnetism.
Richard Feynman said so himself; he's a fine expert witness.
--
It would be difficult to construe Larry Wall, in article
this as a feature. <·····················@netlabs.com>
* Alain Picard <·······@optushome.com.au>
| So, you are saying that because "meaning" only has meaning within the
| human mind, which is _necessarily_ made of matter, that it is incorrect
| to view the world as a duality between matter and information?
Now, "physical" and "made of matter" are not quite the same thing. A
force is physical, yet not made of matter. It has to be carried _by_
matter, but it does not become matter itself just because it is real and
physical.
| Well, no. Culturally, we (or, rather, many of us) view software as
| literature, and programmers as authors, i.e. very special, talented
| people who can conjure wonderful things from within their brains.
| Shakespeare wasn't a magician, he was a genius.
Well, we already understand pretty well how literature works and what it
is and how this impacts how the law must deal with it. There is still a
lack of understanding what software is and how it relates to other
things. Curiously, this lack of understanding has caused intellectual
property to be destabilized, with a number of serious repercussions for
those who want to keep all information out of the hands of lawmakers: The
decision to look at software as patentable machines is a direct result of
the objection to regarding software as copyrightable, which some people
who were also of the mystical inclination fought long and hard against.
| And, of course, physicists do _not_ understand the nature of magnetism.
| Richard Feynman said so himself; he's a fine expert witness.
At least they understand that it is part of reality and not some mystical
property of "mind" that only some new "magnetism theory" can explain by
first assuming that magnetism is distinct from all other forms of being.
Such would be a dramatically anti-intellectual starting point. And that
is just what this mythological specialness of "information" is all about:
It has been created out of thin air, probably because it was easier to do
that than to think things through at the time it first appeared as a
problem. E.g., this notion of "cyberspace" as distinct from reality, as
some see it, has caused lawmakers to wonder if they should enact new
kinds of laws to apply to it, which is _insane_ when you think about what
this "cyberspace" really is: _people_ acting in normal reality. No new
laws are required. Whether people sit around a campfire and tell stories
or do so with much computer hardware and software and visualization and
what have you, is completely immaterial. Yes, it impacts our senses in a
slightly new and different way, but that does not _change_ anything.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, "Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net>
wrote:
> * Alain Picard <·······@optushome.com.au> | So, you are saying that
> because "meaning" only has meaning within the | human mind, which is
> _necessarily_ made of matter, that it is incorrect | to view the world
> as a duality between matter and information?
>
> Now, "physical" and "made of matter" are not quite the same thing. A
> force is physical, yet not made of matter. It has to be carried _by_
> matter, but it does not become matter itself just because it is real
> and physical.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is a claim about physics, and necessarily
subject to physical experiment and theory. So far, we have E=mc^2 and
various quantum mechanical experiments which suggest (to me at least) that
at least some forces are mediated through particles which have energy and
therefore are equivalent to mass.
Just an aside, since I don't think that this is really relevent, and
we should all probably all agree to leave theoretical physics out of this,
since few of us are likely to be expert enough to really stand behind
claims about it, I for one am not, and you'll notice I qualify the above
statement as such.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> Now, "physical" and "made of matter" are not quite the same thing. A
> force is physical, yet not made of matter.
Granted.
> Well, we already understand pretty well how literature works and what it
> is and how this impacts how the law must deal with it. There is still a
> lack of understanding what software is and how it relates to other
> things. Curiously, this lack of understanding has caused intellectual
> property to be destabilized, with a number of serious repercussions for
> those who want to keep all information out of the hands of lawmakers: The
> decision to look at software as patentable machines is a direct result of
> the objection to regarding software as copyrightable, which some people
> who were also of the mystical inclination fought long and hard against.
Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. If your argument is that software
is more like literature (adequately protected by copyright laws) than
machines (covered by patents), well, then, we're in violent agreement. :-)
A "machine" is "something which transforms one form of energy into another form".
Viewing software as a "machine" which "transforms one form on information into
another" _IS_, I agree, a flawed analogy. Information is not energy, thus
software is not a machine. [Tangent: the whole analogy of software development
to "engineering", "building" programs, etc, may also be to blame for this
confusion, and is, IMO, equally mistaken].
This situation has even snowballed in people now getting patents for
mathematical formulas and business processes, something which I believe
is directly contrary to the intent of those who set up the patent process in the
first place.
> | And, of course, physicists do _not_ understand the nature of magnetism.
> | Richard Feynman said so himself; he's a fine expert witness.
>
> At least they understand that it is part of reality and not some mystical
> property of "mind" [etc... SNIP]
Well, yes. Clearly, mysticism is the essense of anti-scientific thinking.
But:
> And that
> is just what this mythological specialness of "information" is all about:
> It has been created out of thin air, probably because it was easier to do
> that than to think things through at the time it first appeared as a
> problem.
I just don't see that "information" is mystical; it is in fact the basis of
entropy, a "real" physical quantity if ever there was one.
I guess I'm saying that the essence of software _is_ information, but
that, to me, this does NOT imply that software is a "machine" and that
copyright does not apply to it. Just as I keep maintaining that the
essence of literature is also information, not the physical media used
to hold that information. Shakespeares's sonnets are not patentable (yet).
> E.g., this notion of "cyberspace" as distinct from reality, as
> some see it, has caused lawmakers to wonder if they should enact new
> kinds of laws to apply to it,
Ugh. You're right: William Gibson has a lot to answer for. :-)
> which is _insane_ when you think about what
> this "cyberspace" really is: _people_ acting in normal reality. No new
> laws are required.
It would appear that we are in agreement after all... thanks for persevering.
--
It would be difficult to construe Larry Wall, in article
this as a feature. <·····················@netlabs.com>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>
> > * ········@acm.org
> > | The comparisons being drawn relate to software;
> >
> > Software is not materially different from any other object being traded.
>
> Yes it is. Software isn't made of matter. (The media in which software
I think that Erik was using "material" in the sense of "relevant"
rather than "of matter".
My time is not made of matter, but that does not imply that there is
any material difference beteeen it and any other object I own that I
would wish to trade.
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * ········@acm.org
> | The comparisons being drawn relate to software;
>
> Software is not materially different from any other object being traded.
I'm not sure wether you mean "materially" in the sense of
significance, or in the sense of a fundamental, qualitative
difference.
I think software differs from debt, futures, and insurance risk, which
are traded, and those differ from oil, gold, sexual organs, and water.
They are tied together by exchange value, but exchange value doesn't
erase all of their difference, wether they be qualitative or
quantitative.
--
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com>
http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
All around the world hearts pound with the rythym. Fear not of
men because men must die. - Mos Def
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum wrote:
>* ···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku)
>| The most common definition used in the consumer marketplace is that free
>| means you don't have to pay. Since you can obtain GNU-type software that
>| way, this interpretation holds true.
>
> No, it does not. If I get some gizmo for free, it is mine to use, abuse,
> destroy, take apart and use the parts for something else, etc.
Really? Do you suppose that you can legally do this with ``free software''
like Internet Explorer?
Most so called ``free software'' can't even be redistributed in the form
you got it, never mind taken apart or modified.
> If I get
> some GNU GPL'ed source code for "free", if I take it apart and use the
> parts for something else, I suddenly owe somebody else something.
What you owe is only the same courtesy you were given.
> This
> is _not_ what "free" means. If I modify the free gizmo and find a way to
> make some better gizmo, I owe nobody anything.
If the gizmo is that much better than the original work, then why did
you need the original to start with? Should you be able to usurp
any rights over the original code, just because of your enhancement?
> If I do the same with a
> GNU GPL'ed program, I must give the new, better idea back to whoever gave
> it to me for "free".
Actually, you do not. But you are required, if you redistribute your
program, to put your *expression* of that idea under the same license.
So you are making exactly the same concessions that the original authors
did; nothing more or less. They can't do anything with your contributions
that you cannot do with theirs; it's perfectly equal. You are not gaining
control over anyone's code, and they are not gaining control over yours.
It was you who not long ago here explained so clearly the difference
between *ideas* and their *expression*.
If you don't like the license, take your *ideas* and *express* them in a
different substrate, one whose politics suit you better. You are still
free to do that even though you granted the expression of your ideas to
the GPLed project.
Example: say you contribute some authentication system to some free
client/server system. That does not preclude you from using the same
authentication system in your proprietary program, even the same
expression of it. Another obvious example is BSD-licensed code that
is used in GPLed programs; that same code is also used in proprietary
programs. Its presence in the GPLed programs does not threaten these
other instances that exist within proprietary programs.
You also have to be careful to distinguish between GPLed program and
GNU program. The Free Software Foundation asks for copyright transfers
and employer waivers when you contribute to their software. This is not
required by the GNU license; it's a separate activity the FSF engages
in. It actually makes a lot of good sense, because without the copyright
transfers and waivers, a program, especially one with many authors, is
at risk of future infringement claims. It's not intended to wrestle the
software away from programmers. They go through this hassle voluntarily,
as I have.
It's true that when you sign such a copyright transfer, you do lose
your rights over the code. But that has nothing to do with the GNU
license; it's a contribution prerequisite imposed by the maintainers
of a particular stream of the program. Someone can make a fork of
the program and accept patches from you without *without* asking for
such a copyright assignment.
If I'm maintaining a free program, and I ask you to play the fiddle while
standing on your head before I accept a patch, then by golly, you will
do that, or I won't accept the patch into my stream. :) With GPLed
software, you have the right so say screw that, and start your own fork.
* Kaz Kylheku
| If the gizmo is that much better than the original work, then why did
| you need the original to start with? Should you be able to usurp
| any rights over the original code, just because of your enhancement?
I think you need to look at how patent law works.
| It was you who not long ago here explained so clearly the difference
| between *ideas* and their *expression*.
So assume I get it, damnit.
| You also have to be careful to distinguish between GPLed program and GNU
| program. The Free Software Foundation asks for copyright transfers and
| employer waivers when you contribute to their software. This is not
| required by the GNU license; it's a separate activity the FSF engages in.
| It actually makes a lot of good sense, because without the copyright
| transfers and waivers, a program, especially one with many authors, is at
| risk of future infringement claims. It's not intended to wrestle the
| software away from programmers. They go through this hassle voluntarily,
| as I have.
Well, the important issue here is whether the authors of the changes are
the legal owners of the source they contribute. This tends to be quite
hard to ascertain. The copyright transfer is the only viable way to deal
with that issue.
| It's true that when you sign such a copyright transfer, you do lose your
| rights over the code. But that has nothing to do with the GNU license;
| it's a contribution prerequisite imposed by the maintainers of a
| particular stream of the program.
I disagree strongly. A GPL'ed program without a clean copyright trail is
a very dangerous thing, legally speaking.
| If I'm maintaining a free program, and I ask you to play the fiddle while
| standing on your head before I accept a patch, then by golly, you will
| do that, or I won't accept the patch into my stream. :)
Well, there is this notion in contract law of unenforceable requirements.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfw668qaqbc.fsf@world.std.com>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> ... I think there is an old idiom, "Indian giver" or
> something, which applies to people who do not _really_ give things away...
Without prejudice as to the usefulness of the expression in this context,
I think you have to say "Native American giver" now, though no one does. ;)
It seems to me like whatever the group is, they got a bad rap. Things were
mostly only taken from them and NOT given back. I don't know why they, of
ALL people, would be associated with inappropriate desire to have things
returned.
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
>
>>... I think there is an old idiom, "Indian giver" or
>>something, which applies to people who do not _really_ give things away...
>>
>
> Without prejudice as to the usefulness of the expression in this context,
> I think you have to say "Native American giver" now, though no one does. ;)
>
>
> It seems to me like whatever the group is, they got a bad rap. Things were
> mostly only taken from them and NOT given back. I don't know why they, of
> ALL people, would be associated with inappropriate desire to have things
> returned.
The term, though used as a put-down, actually describes an admirable
attitude about sharing.
From:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:4NMkZOiygQE:scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v2n3n4/pdf/baird.pdf+indian+giver+epistemology&hl=en
"Hyde goes on to describe how the Massachusetts Indians may have shared
a peace pipe with the Puritan settlers, leaving the pipe with the
newcomers. But the Indians expected the pipe to be returned, or better,
recycled and given to others as part of the socially binding cycle of
giving peace making: "The Indian giver (or the original one, at any
rate) understood a cardinal property of the gift: whatever we have been
given is supposed to be given away again, not kept. Or if it is kept,
something of similar value should move on in its stead" (Hyde, 1979, p. 4)."
RMS is from Massachusetts, yes? Maybe he has some Mass Indian blood in
him. :)
kenny
clinisys
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> > Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> >
>
> >>... I think there is an old idiom, "Indian giver" or
> >>something, which applies to people who do not _really_ give things away...
> >>
> > Without prejudice as to the usefulness of the expression in this
> > context,
>
> > I think you have to say "Native American giver" now, though no one
> > does. ;) It seems to me like whatever the group is, they got a bad
> > rap. Things were mostly only taken from them and NOT given back.
> > I don't know why they, of ALL people, would be associated with
> > inappropriate desire to have things returned.
> The term, though used as a put-down, actually describes an admirable
> attitude about sharing.
Any time I've heard the term in use, the story wasn't about returning
a "peace pipe."
It was instead about a horse that would get sold to a would-be new
owner; shortly after the purchase, the horse would buck them off, and
head home to its previous master who would then set up another
customer for fleecing.
As with all stereotypes, there likely is enough truth to allow people
to believe it sometimes true; as with most stereotypes, it
oversimplifies things, of course...
--
(concatenate 'string "aa454" ·@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
"On the Internet, no one knows you're using Windows NT"
-- Ramiro Estrugo, ········@fateware.com
········@acm.org wrote:
> Any time I've heard the term in use, the story wasn't about returning
> a "peace pipe."
that horse story sounds familiar. i certainly thought it was an insult
before finding that web site, and according to one dictionary I saw it
/is/ an insult, no two ways about it.
it is nice to know there is another more benign meaning, and amusing how
that meaning aligns with the GPL:
http://www.firstnations.org/publications/indian_Giver.htm
"The true meaning of the term 'Indian Giver' signifies a willingness to
care, an expectation of sharing; a cultural commitment to generosity
that is not to be questioned. Indian Giving was and is the future wealth
of society."
that is even reminiscent of the obligation placed on users of GPLed
software by the GPL to continue the sharing if they relect to redistribute.
kenny
clinisys
In article <··············@nyc.rr.com>, Kenny Tilton wrote:
> ········@acm.org wrote:
>
>> Any time I've heard the term in use, the story wasn't about returning
>> a "peace pipe."
>
>
> that horse story sounds familiar. i certainly thought it was an insult
> before finding that web site, and according to one dictionary I saw it
> /is/ an insult, no two ways about it.
>
> it is nice to know there is another more benign meaning, and amusing how
> that meaning aligns with the GPL:
>
> http://www.firstnations.org/publications/indian_Giver.htm
>
> "The true meaning of the term 'Indian Giver' signifies a willingness to
> care, an expectation of sharing; a cultural commitment to generosity
> that is not to be questioned. Indian Giving was and is the future wealth
> of society."
>
> that is even reminiscent of the obligation placed on users of GPLed
> software by the GPL to continue the sharing if they relect to redistribute.
>
> kenny
> clinisys
>
>
I do not see a clear connection here between "indian giver" and gpl as
"indian giver" is defined above.
The gpl is an act of force, you must comply or we will do bad things
to you with our lawyers. But "indisn giver" as defined above says I
will treate you well and hope that you will treat me like wise, this
is moral and ethical behavior. There is a big difference between the
two. I think "indian giver" is in line with BSD licenceing and puting
something in the public domain not the gpl.
marc
* Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com>
| It seems to me like whatever the group is, they got a bad rap. Things
| were mostly only taken from them and NOT given back. I don't know why
| they, of ALL people, would be associated with inappropriate desire to
| have things returned.
The history of this expression seems to be that Indians (or whatever) did
not deal with one-way gifts, only two-way gifts, and so wanted something
in return for giving you something. It seems more applicable when I know
the story of this expression, however politically incorrect.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
* Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net>:
> [SNIP] If I modify the free gizmo and find a way to
> make some better gizmo, I owe nobody anything. If I do the same with a
> GNU GPL'ed program, I must give the new, better idea back to whoever gave
> it to me for "free". [SNIP]
Not quite. If you modify something that's under the GPL and you never
distribute it you never have to provide your enhancements to anyone. The
only people you need to provide your enhancements to are the people that you
distribute them to. That doesn't have to include the author of the code you
enhanced, neither does it have to include the person who provided you with
the code (they could be different people).
Obviously, in many cases, such distribution could mean that your
enhancements to an item of free software will make it back to the original
author via a indirect route, which might be what you were getting at.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
In article <·····················@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> In article <···················@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>In article <·····················@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> In article <···················@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>>>here is my point the gpl is NOT NOT NOT free, but is presented as free
>>>>and this is dishonest and misleading.
>>>
>>> Would you like to actually name someone, and accuse him or her of lying?
>>>
>>
>>It was explained in my previous post, in a part you cut out that I do
>>not think anything that comes with oblagations is free, my dictionary
>>agrees with me on this(see below)
>
> So you must object to a whole lot of uses of the word ``free'' made in
> the market place.
>
I object to the deleberate misuse/abuse of the word free in the market
place, in this case the the terms and conditions of the gpl from the
point of view of a developer who wants to do orignal work based on a
gpled package. From a developers POV the BSD licence is much better,
you are required to give credit where credit is due, but you can keep
your modifacations and due what you will with them. And yes public
domain is the most free
>>> As far as ``free'' goes, the GNU advocates go through great pains to
>>> tell everyone what they mean when they use the word, to the point
>>> of being irritating to some.
>>
>>I do not care what made up definition they use I care about the agreed
>>apon definitions used by everyone else.
>
> The most common definition used in the consumer marketplace is that free
> means you don't have to pay. Since you can obtain GNU-type software that
> way, this interpretation holds true.
>
but as a developer I do have to pay by being forced to release my
code, weather I want to or not.
> For instance, a GNU program is *at least* as free as Internet Explorer,
> which Microsoft claims is free for download.
>
> What about all those vendors who offers you a ``free gift''---with
> a purchase, of course.
when I get the gift it is mine and if there is an up front condition
that I have to purchase something else, that is clearly stated, they
are being much more honest then the FSF.
>
>>Just to be sure I was not wrong I just reread the definition of free
>>in the dictionary and all of the definations seem to contradict the
>>FSF's personel definition of free.
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>let me type in my dictionaries definition of free:
>>free:
>>1: having liberity
>>2: not controled by others
>>3: made or done voluntarily
>>4: released or not suffering from something unpleasant
>>5: not subject to a duty tax or other charge
>>6: not obstructed
>>7: not being used or occupided
>>8: not fastened
>>9: lavish
>>10: open , frank
>>11: given with out charge
>>12: not literal or exact
>>13: not restricted by conventional forms
>>
>>The dictionary is "The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary"
>>copy right 1989
>>
>>the FSF definition of free seems to contradict 2, 5, 6 and 11 easly
>>and 4 and 10 are a matter of opinion.
>
> Let's see. That leaves 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13. You said above that
> the FSF's usage seems to contradict *all* of the nuances of the word
> covered in your dictionary, not only six out of thirteen.
actualy #1 also applys to my argument, the gpl takes away liberity
from the developer and #3 in theroy it complels you with force of law
to release your source code.
Now of the remaining definitions of the word free listed above, 7, 8,
9, 12, 13 could you please show me how they apply to this thread?
With an real example for each, because I can not see any of the
definitions if free that you have left, short of the FSF's lie,
applying in the context of this discussion.
>
>>and will you please stop with the idiot remarks, I have test score
>>that prove I am not an idiot.
>
> Your test scores mean nothing here. Stop being an idiot here, and
> the remarks will stop. Perhaps your test didn't require the ability to
> count to 13.
no they did not, I had to count to 21. But could you at least
understand that insulting people is a creative art and apply some
varity to your insult of choice, it would make for more interesting
reading. Here are some examples of alternatives to idiot:
moron
fool
lack wit
buffoon
empty headed buffoon
block head
knuckle dragging block head
and so on
varity is the spice of usenet posts, add some to yours.
marc
In article <····················@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>gpled package. From a developers POV the BSD licence is much better,
>you are required to give credit where credit is due, but you can keep
Actually you are not. That requirement has been removed from the
BSD license. That is to say, compiled code doesn't have to carry any
copyright messages. You can use BSD-licensed code in a compiled program
without revealing that it contains any such thing.
>your modifacations and due what you will with them. And yes public
>domain is the most free
The BSD license is now equivalent to public domain (at least with
respect to the incorporation of the code into compiled programs).
So what you are saying is that it's better from *your* point
of view for *other* developers to put their stuff under the BSD license
or put it into the public domain, so that you could leech their work.
Developers who don't want to quite do that for you are dishonest liars,
who are denying you a piece of your absolute freedom.
In article <·····················@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> In article <····················@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>gpled package. From a developers POV the BSD licence is much better,
>>you are required to give credit where credit is due, but you can keep
>
> Actually you are not. That requirement has been removed from the
> BSD license. That is to say, compiled code doesn't have to carry any
> copyright messages. You can use BSD-licensed code in a compiled program
> without revealing that it contains any such thing.
It does depend on which version of the bsd licence we are talking
about. I was talking about the orginal not the newer one, I do not
see any real need not to give credit where it is due and would gladly
do so.
>
>>your modifacations and due what you will with them. And yes public
>>domain is the most free
>
> The BSD license is now equivalent to public domain (at least with
> respect to the incorporation of the code into compiled programs).
>
> So what you are saying is that it's better from *your* point
> of view for *other* developers to put their stuff under the BSD license
> or put it into the public domain, so that you could leech their work.
Who are you to call me a leach, please present your evidence or be
known for what you are a slanderer. Well at least leach is a change
from idiot.
>
> Developers who don't want to quite do that for you are dishonest liars,
> who are denying you a piece of your absolute freedom.
I never said that they had to use my personal definition of free, I
leave that to the FSF, I want them to use the definition if free that
apears in dictionaries. That is what I would like to see. And I have
no objection to someone releasing there work onder what ever terms
they wan I just have a problem with them being dishonest about those
terms, that is all. Redefining words that are in common use to allow
you to call something its not is dishonest pure and simple.
since you have refused to reply to any of my main points and have
edited them out of your replys we are done, is this correct or do you
wish to insult my cat now to put me in my place.
marc
* Kaz Kylheku
| As far as ``free'' goes, the GNU advocates go through great pains to
| tell everyone what they mean when they use the word, to the point
| of being irritating to some.
But this alone should tell you that they are not being entirely honest.
Their use of "free" is deliberately misleading, _because_ they throw the
whole dictionary at you if you think it means what it normally means of
things: A free thing is obtainable at no cost and without restricting
conditions on how it can be acted upon, while a free person is without
restrictions on his movements and actions. "Free" as used by the FSF is
_neither_, it is instead a very specific set of restrictions, so harsh
they can threaten to take what you have created if you fail to keep some
part of a copyright license -- a threat that is _probably_ not honorable
by any court in the world. This use of "free" is Orwellian newspeak.
| If you read any document and it uses a word like ``free'' that has many
| meanings, and you substitute your own interpretation rather than look up
| the intended meaning in the document's glossary, then it's not the case
| that the document is dishonest and misleading, but rather than you are an
| idiot who doesn't know how to read a document correctly.
The funny thing with "free" is that some people consider their needs so
important that other people's freedom or lack thereof become irrelevant.
No "glossary" is going to remove that aspect of _misuse_ of "free", and
if a glossary attempts to do so, there is ample reason to suspect that
the authors of said document are trying to trick someone. That is, the
usual way to deal with glossaries is to ensure that _technical_ terms are
properly narrowly defined and if they are technical terms, the author is
free to invent new terms and define their meaning, but it is suspicious
when a non-technical term is completell redefined compared to standard
meanings, like when a country decides to put "democratic" in its name to
ensure the world that the people _really_ wanted that kind of government.
I used to believe it was a good idea to call it "Free Software" because
the freedom of the users was so important. That was as long as I was a
user. When I had given away a couple thousand hours of work on various
"Free Software" projects (time flies when you're having fun and no reason
to prioritize), I came to conclude that all this freedom did not apply to
creators of significant portions of anything, only to consumers who did a
_little_ tinkering, and I lost interest fast. Not only because of the
lack of actual freedom to do what I wanted with what I had created, but
because te whole idea of "Free Software" emanated from a desire not to
lock people into a designer's decisions. Applications that allow users
to tinker should not provide source code to everything, but should be
written in a language that allows the user to patch things in a way that
does not require complete recompilation, nor use a complete replacement
of the patched functions. It is important that the "user language" is a
complete programming language. In short, I concluded that writing "Free
Software" in C and similar languages in order to give programmers more
freedom was _nuts_ -- the right solution is to use Lisp, and preferably
something based on the best industry practice, Common Lisp, and give
users the ability to load patches and do useful things in the programming
framework that the application provides. This is why I think it makes
sense to let Common Lisp applications be deployed very differently from
the usual compiled binary, but it has to be followed up, and designers of
such applications need to think in the proper user programming terms.
Some of the possibly best examples of this kind of application is the
spreadsheet and the database system. So if "cat" is a useful program to
enhance, it should simply be regarded as a function in a larger system
and that system should support user modifications on a much higher level
than replacing the whole program. Not only will a new version of the
core program force the user to keep modifying the program's source over
and over for no good reason, mixing several people's changes will be so
tough that there is good reason not to make "deviant" versions at all,
and _then_ what is the point of this whole exercise? Presumably, all
such modifications would have to be reported back to the maintainer, but
it would be impossible to accept all kinds of modifications. This again
means that only those patches that some maintainer accepts will be made
to the program. What kind of _freedom_ is this?
After a long process of not being to happy about the sitution, I had to
conclude that "Free Software" was all wrong and that getting lots of
people to contribute to something like this and _profit_ from it in the
_long_ run would require a whole different model. Which one I could not
tell and have not figured out, yet, but I am quite certain it cannot be
the very _coercive_ model used by the "Free Software" movement. I am far
from thrilled with the other "Open Source" movements, either, but that is
probably because I have spent some time studying copyright, software, and
internet law. The whole idea of sharing stuff for free is unsustainable
and can only work for a short time, because something else is keeping it
afloat. I have repeatedly argued and maintain that the reason people are
willing to give away their work to their community is that they are like
soldiers fighting the evil empire, Microsoft. Once that objective has
been achieved or it appears to be, the will to give away (let us call it
a (small) sacrifice) evaporates and we will have so many "veterans" who
will feel that the community they gave up (part of) their youth for, or
at least a shot at selling their skills for real money, is not rewarding
or even remembering them -- just like in the rest of real life, far from
everybody who made a difference will be remembered and those who tried
but did not make a difference will be forgotten and will have received
nothing lasting in return for it. As for the case where some company
charges real money only to create and give something away, it will most
probably be ruled anti-competitive if this all somehow gets out of hand
and anyone wants to challenge those who have given things away in court
because they have actively blocked any and all competitors that could
afford to give their stuff away. This is particularly bad when making
improvements would require giving away those improvements to what should
have been a bone-fide competitor. Since a major momentum for the "free
software" movement is precisely to copy the inventiveness of companies
who had to pay for their developers and there is solid evidence to show
that even while not copying a non-free competitor, other competition has
been a major source of improvements. When the competition is thus ruled
out of the picture by the _success_ of the "free software" plan, what
looked like paranoid rantings and ravings from Steve Ballmer some time
ago, may actually turn out to be a likely future, and it _will_ be anti-
competitive and anti-inventive. On the one hand, somebody will always
want something for free, and someone will always want to make it for free
as long as there is an "enemy" to fight, but what happens when somebody
wants something and the _only_ source of that new feature would be the
"free" version? How many people can you fool into giving their work away
for how long when they could have made money selling it? Watching people
find ways to make money on "free software" will be interesting, as it
will be interesting to watch people who compete with the "free software"
offerings try to continue to make money. I personally fear that there
will be free product categories and non-free product categories, and that
a product category that gets taken overy the "free software" people will
wither and die, being monopolized by a "free software" product. I do not
see this as a good thing.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
From: Ed L Cashin
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <m3hes9s3nx.fsf@terry.uga.edu>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
...
> I used to believe it was a good idea to call it "Free Software" because
> the freedom of the users was so important. That was as long as I was a
> user. When I had given away a couple thousand hours of work on various
> "Free Software" projects (time flies when you're having fun and no reason
> to prioritize), I came to conclude that all this freedom did not apply to
> creators of significant portions of anything, only to consumers who did a
> _little_ tinkering, and I lost interest fast.
It applies to everyone who doesn't want to re-release the code with a
more restrictive license.
...
> It is important that the "user language" is a
> complete programming language. In short, I concluded that writing "Free
> Software" in C and similar languages in order to give programmers more
> freedom was _nuts_ -- the right solution is to use Lisp, and preferably
> something based on the best industry practice, Common Lisp, and give
> users the ability to load patches and do useful things in the programming
> framework that the application provides.
Sounds good, but there is a lot of excellent software I'm using right
now that is the direct result of the "nuts" way, so I'll choose to
call it "proven effective" rather than nuts.
...
> After a long process of not being to happy about the sitution, I had to
> conclude that "Free Software" was all wrong and that getting lots of
> people to contribute to something like this and _profit_ from it in the
> _long_ run would require a whole different model.
What kind of profit do you mean? I've profited from GPL'ed software
because it taught me programming *before* I was a programmer and
before I had enough money to buy books.
> Which one I could not
> tell and have not figured out, yet, but I am quite certain it cannot be
> the very _coercive_ model used by the "Free Software" movement.
Please let us know when you come up with a better way for me to
release code publicly while still being sure that I am not working for
MegaBucks without pay.
--
--Ed Cashin integrit file-verification system:
·······@terry.uga.edu http://integrit.sourceforge.net/
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
* Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu>
| Sounds good, but there is a lot of excellent software I'm using right now
| that is the direct result of the "nuts" way, so I'll choose to call it
| "proven effective" rather than nuts.
Sigh. Not the Microsoft argument! If people work hard enough, _anything_
can be proven effective.
| What kind of profit do you mean? I've profited from GPL'ed software
| because it taught me programming *before* I was a programmer and before I
| had enough money to buy books.
I have argued for the educational value of "free software" for years.
| Please let us know when you come up with a better way for me to release
| code publicly while still being sure that I am not working for MegaBucks
| without pay.
That appears to be a central argument for "free software", but MegaBucks
Inc have the bucks to take all of your work and modify it sufficiently
that you will be unable to tell it was yours, and it will cost them less
than developing it from scratch. Releasing the source code means that
some scumbags _will_ use it in violation of your license, and you will
not have a snowball's chance in hell protecting yourself or your source.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
> once code is touched by gpled code the FSF's oppinion is that it is
> all gpled code, as I unserstand it.
This isn't the right way to look at it.
GPLed code is licensed. That license says that if you want to use the
GPLed code, you have to agree to certain conditions.
If you don't follow those conditions you have no legal right to use
the GPLed code.
Thus code doesn't get `touched' by GPLed code. You choose to use the
GPLed code. The consequences of that choice include following the
GPL.
> here is my point the gpl is NOT NOT NOT free, but is presented as
> free and this is dishonest and misleading.
I think it was Eric Naggum that brought up the distinction of
`encumbered' and `unencumbered'. This seems to be the most valid way
of looking at things. GPLed code is encumbered. That's true. That's
because the FSF is using its coding efforts to advance its political
agenda. Note that the meanest intelligence can determine what the FSF
is up to by simply reading the documents they produce. So they are
not hiding anything. So they are not being dishonest and misleading.
I personally have no problem with the FSF's policy, because they are
not coercing me to follow their political agenda. What's more, I
obtain high-quality software for no direct outlay of money, as long as
I'm willing to follow the GPL where it applies. I make the choice. I
also (usually) have alternatives, such as software with less
restrictive licenses, or even commercial software.
The FSF also argues that the GPL is a means to an end, that end being
that all software would be unencumbered. They claim that the GPL will
further that end. One can agree or disagree with either the end
itself or whether the GPL furthers the end, but at least that's what
they think they are doing.
The GPL doesn't actively take away your freedom, and one can at least
argue that because of it software is freer than it would otherwise be.
One can also make use of GPLed software without agreeing with every
aspect of the FSF's position.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Ah, the 20th century, when the flight from reason crash-landed into
the slaughterhouse. --- James Ostrowski
In article <··············@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>, Fred Gilham wrote:
>
>> once code is touched by gpled code the FSF's oppinion is that it is
>> all gpled code, as I unserstand it.
>
>This isn't the right way to look at it.
>
>GPLed code is licensed. That license says that if you want to use the
>GPLed code, you have to agree to certain conditions.
>
>If you don't follow those conditions you have no legal right to use
>the GPLed code.
s/use/redistribute/
It's not a use license, but a redistribution license. You always have
a right to use the code.
The extent to which the GPL touches upon use is the warranty disclaimer.
In article <··············@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>, Fred Gilham wrote:
>
>> once code is touched by gpled code the FSF's oppinion is that it is
>> all gpled code, as I unserstand it.
>
> This isn't the right way to look at it.
>
> GPLed code is licensed. That license says that if you want to use the
> GPLed code, you have to agree to certain conditions.
>
> If you don't follow those conditions you have no legal right to use
> the GPLed code.
>
> Thus code doesn't get `touched' by GPLed code. You choose to use the
> GPLed code. The consequences of that choice include following the
> GPL.
If you look at my previous posts I said mistakenly included gpled code
in my app and releases a rpm. Now I did not make a deliberate
decision to use gpled code, I made a deliberate decision not to use
gpled code and messed up on implamentation. But I am stuck with the
consaquences of having released a binary based on gpled code(rpm) so I
ma in the code maintenance business for the next 3 years.
>
>> here is my point the gpl is NOT NOT NOT free, but is presented as
>> free and this is dishonest and misleading.
>
> I think it was Eric Naggum that brought up the distinction of
> `encumbered' and `unencumbered'. This seems to be the most valid way
> of looking at things. GPLed code is encumbered. That's true. That's
> because the FSF is using its coding efforts to advance its political
> agenda. Note that the meanest intelligence can determine what the FSF
> is up to by simply reading the documents they produce. So they are
> not hiding anything. So they are not being dishonest and misleading.
>
I dont have a problem with there licence, I don't agree with it and
that is a seperate issue, because they have the right to release there
code under what ever licence they want. What I have a problem with is
that the gpl is not free for any normal definition of free and they
know this because they *redefine* free to suit there agenda and this
is dishonest and I have a problem with lie's and/or deliberate
misrepresentation. And they are being misleading, to say the least,
when I need to do a due diligence on there material to figure out that
the "free" software is not free when they claim it is "free" for there
*unique and custom* definition of free.
> I personally have no problem with the FSF's policy, because they are
> not coercing me to follow their political agenda. What's more, I
> obtain high-quality software for no direct outlay of money, as long as
> I'm willing to follow the GPL where it applies. I make the choice. I
> also (usually) have alternatives, such as software with less
> restrictive licenses, or even commercial software.
>
I have a problem with there honesty in how they go about implementing
there policy
> The FSF also argues that the GPL is a means to an end, that end being
> that all software would be unencumbered. They claim that the GPL will
> further that end. One can agree or disagree with either the end
> itself or whether the GPL furthers the end, but at least that's what
> they think they are doing.
The ends justify the means? As far as I know they never have, in the
long run.
>
> The GPL doesn't actively take away your freedom, and one can at least
> argue that because of it software is freer than it would otherwise be.
> One can also make use of GPLed software without agreeing with every
> aspect of the FSF's position.
>
sure it does, if I use there stuff I havwe to release my stuff if I
sell it or give it away and I have to maintain copies of my stuff for
3 years in source code format if I distribute a binary copy
marc
> --
> Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
> Ah, the 20th century, when the flight from reason crash-landed into
> the slaughterhouse. --- James Ostrowski
> I dont have a problem with there licence, I don't agree with it and
> that is a seperate issue, because they have the right to release
> there code under what ever licence they want. What I have a problem
> with is that the gpl is not free for any normal definition of free
> and they know this because they *redefine* free to suit there agenda
> and this is dishonest and I have a problem with lie's and/or
> deliberate misrepresentation.
Please, for the love of Bob, learn and use the distinction between
"they're," "there," and "their," when to use the apostrophe, how to
capitalize acronyms, and how to construct non run-on sentences.
Also, please take this discussion to gnu.misc.discuss, or somewhere
else appropriate. I suspect that I'm not alone among c.l.l lurkers in
my irritation.
Thank you.
--
Edward O'Connor
···@oconnor.cx
In article <···············@cs.rose-hulman.edu>, Edward O'Connor wrote:
>> I dont have a problem with there licence, I don't agree with it and
>> that is a seperate issue, because they have the right to release
>> there code under what ever licence they want. What I have a problem
>> with is that the gpl is not free for any normal definition of free
>> and they know this because they *redefine* free to suit there agenda
>> and this is dishonest and I have a problem with lie's and/or
>> deliberate misrepresentation.
>
> Please, for the love of Bob, learn and use the distinction between
> "they're," "there," and "their," when to use the apostrophe, how to
> capitalize acronyms, and how to construct non run-on sentences.
thanks for the grammer lession
>
> Also, please take this discussion to gnu.misc.discuss, or somewhere
> else appropriate. I suspect that I'm not alone among c.l.l lurkers in
> my irritation.
>
It started here and I think it should finish here, if you dont like it
just ignore it.
> Thank you.
>
>
your welcome
marc
> --
> Edward O'Connor
> ···@oconnor.cx
> If you look at my previous posts I said mistakenly included gpled
> code in my app and releases a rpm. Now I did not make a deliberate
> decision to use gpled code, I made a deliberate decision not to use
> gpled code and messed up on implamentation. But I am stuck with the
> consaquences of having released a binary based on gpled code(rpm) so
> I ma in the code maintenance business for the next 3 years.
You can just re-implement the offending part. If I remember
correctly, in the past the FSF has agreed that if there is a
replacement module, the application doesn't fall under the GPL. I
think this was in a case where someone used the gmp library, though my
recollection is hazy.
> The ends justify the means? As far as I know they never have, in
> the long run.
Some people believe this; I don't. But nobody lives completely
consistently.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Ah, the 20th century, when the flight from reason crash-landed into
the slaughterhouse. --- James Ostrowski
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> If I remember correctly, in the past the FSF has agreed that if there
> is a replacement module, the application doesn't fall under the GPL.
> I think this was in a case where someone used the gmp library, though
> my recollection is hazy.
No- gmp is LGPL'ed; which use to be the "recommended" license for code
libraries that have existing non-GPL counterparts. The difference is
that you may use libraries like gmp to distribute (dynamically-linked?)
non-GPL binaries without violating the LGPL. Many libraries (like
glibc) use the LGPL, as it addresses a deficiency in the GPL with
regard to "fair use" of a code library; but GNU advocates probably
no longer see it that way. However, some libraries that are GPL'd
also explicitly state that linking constitutes "fair use".
In my view the GPL is a license that tries to establish a reasonable
notion of "community property"; it is specifically meant to prevent
entities from redistributing "community" code in a derivative work
from which the "community" derives no benefit. For the linux kernel,
that means things like kernel modules, patches and add-ons must be
shared (as per GPL) with the kernel developers (if they are provided
to anyone else). It also protects people that contribute to the linux
kernel, since the copyright holders (i.e. Linus) could not use those
contributions to produce a non-GPL'd version of the kernel without
permission.
AFAIK, no other license offers such egalitarian protections- many other
free-ish licenses (like apache's) require contributors to forfeit their
copyrights if they'd like to contribute anything. By way of comparison,
book publishers and record distributors typically seek forfeiture of
copyright from their authors, whereas newspapers and magazines do not.
Sadly transfer of copyright is required by most academic journals
as well; and IMO it prevents a lot of publicly funded, published research
from ever hitting the worldwide web.
--
Joe Schaefer
>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Schaefer <··········@sunstarsys.com> writes:
Joe> Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
>> If I remember correctly, in the past the FSF has agreed that if there
>> is a replacement module, the application doesn't fall under the GPL.
>> I think this was in a case where someone used the gmp library, though
>> my recollection is hazy.
Joe> No- gmp is LGPL'ed; which use to be the "recommended" license for code
Joe> libraries that have existing non-GPL counterparts. The difference is
My fuzzy memory of this issue is in line with Fred. There was a
fairly big discussion about this in gnu.misc.discuss (I think) a long
time ago. FSF demanded that the other code be "released" as well
because it was specifically written to use gmp and no other library
would work. It was some kind of crypto code like RSA or some such.
Eventually the code was changed to support some other bignum
implementation, perhaps, as Fred says, written for the sole purpose of
replacing gmp. I think the FSF finally said it was ok by either
saying it was ok or by changing the license to LGPL. Don't remember
the exact reason.
Might be available on usenet archive near you?
Ray
Raymond Toy <···@rtp.ericsson.se> writes:
> >>>>> "Joe" == Joe Schaefer <··········@sunstarsys.com> writes:
>
> Joe> Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> >> If I remember correctly, in the past the FSF has agreed that if
> >> there is a replacement module, the application doesn't fall
> >> under the GPL. I think this was in a case where someone used
> >> the gmp library, though my recollection is hazy.
>
> Joe> No- gmp is LGPL'ed; which use to be the "recommended"
> Joe> license for code libraries that have existing non-GPL
> Joe> counterparts. The difference is
>
> My fuzzy memory of this issue is in line with Fred. There was a
> fairly big discussion about this in gnu.misc.discuss (I think) a long
> time ago. FSF demanded that the other code be "released" as well
> because it was specifically written to use gmp and no other library
> would work. It was some kind of crypto code like RSA or some such.
Ah, sorry about that. You are quite right- gmp was changed from GPL
to LGPL and there was lots of discussion of this on usenet:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gmp+gpl&hl=en
Thanks for the correction: I haven't been using gmp long enough to
notice the change in licensing.
--
Joe Schaefer
In article <···················@oscar.eng.cv.net>, Marc Spitzer wrote:
>I do no think that the gpl is built around rights. I think it is
>built around imposing oblagations on others. If you use 1 gpled
>file in your applacation by mistake and distribute it FSF claims that
>the app is now gpl and the people who used my app now have the right
If you use a GPLed file by mistake, then you're an idiot.
What exactly is your point? That every piece of source code you can
get your hands on should be in the public domain, so that in case you
``accidentally'' put it in your program, you are not violating any
license?
>to all of my work for free and I have no right to compensation for the
Bullshit. The unlawful inclusion of copyrighted material into your work
does not cause your work to lose its copyright protection. This is a
simple case of infringement. A stupid mistake was made that you can
repair in various ways, such as removing the GPLed source file from
future releases of your program. Whether or not you want to put your
program under the GNU License is entirely up to you.
>extra value provided by the source. I think for most end users source
>has no real value most of the time, they just want it to work.
Even users who don't do anything with source code benefit from that
source code being available to *others*.
Also, how can something have value some of the time, but not most of
the time? Something has value when it has a potential to be
used in some way. That potential does not exist only when that use
is made; it is latent.
Really, you should consider allowing for the collaboration of two
or more brain cells in the formation of a Usenet posting.
> This
>would apply even if you removed the file and redistributed your app.
If you remove the file which is the source of infringement, then the work
is no longer a copyright infringement. The existing copies of the work in
circulartion are still infringing; there isn't anything you can do about
that other than inform the users about the issue. Once the users know that
they are using an infringing work that has been recalled, it's up to
them to decide what to do. But it's certainly not the case that your
entire program is being offered to them under the GPL.
····@oscar.eng.cv.net (Marc Spitzer) writes:
> If you use 1 gpled file in your applacation by mistake and
> distribute it FSF claims that the app is now gpl and the people who
> used my app now have the right to all of my work for free and I have
> no right to compensation for the extra value provided by the source.
No, he will be accused in the infringement of the copyright law,
because he has no rights to distribute FSF's code. There will be two
solutions: to stop distributing or to get a right. The second way
differs traditional companies and FSF: in the former case he will buy a
license, and in the latter - will GPL his code.
Regards,
Alexey Dejneka
--
(loop with nil = t do ...)
* Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com>
| No, it doesn't. Free software is public domain software. Anything less
| is not free, it is restricted.
The legal term, as you probably know, is "encumbered". The interesting
question when you would like to use some piece of software is whether it
is unencumbered. GNU GPL is one of the _worst_ licenses you can get
entangled in because it encumbers not only derived works, but tries to
encumber related works in ways that have not been challenged and upheld
in court, but which are fairly scary. On the other hand, it is pretty
hard for anyone to find out if you take some "free software" and violate
the GPL, because there is no tracking how people obtained access to the
source code. (The risk is, of course, disgruntled employees and the
inability to share the source code with anyone.)
| The purpose of free software is not to assure freedom of the original
| code, it is to coerce the use of that code. If code is TRULY free,
| nothing can restrict its use--the code continues to be useable by anyone
| who wants to use it.
I believe the purpose of the GNU GPL and "Free Software" is to ensure the
consumers, not the creators, are free to use the code any way they want.
This works just fine if you do not consider the rights of any creators,
which is consistent with certain political views that tend to think that
whoever owns things deserves no protection or legal rights, and which is
also consistent with the belief that there is a material legal difference
between the creative work done by the little guy and big business. There
is none, but by killing the protection afforded the latter, the little
guy is left to fend for himself, too, which is _much_ more unaffordable
than fighting big business at times.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
Erik> I believe the purpose of the GNU GPL and "Free Software" is to
Erik> ensure the consumers, not the creators, are free to use the code
Erik> any way they want. This works just fine if you do not consider
Erik> the rights of any creators, [...]
Creators have every right *not* to use "Free Software", so the GNU GPL
does not infringe anyones rights.
I am not sure what this has to do with Lisp.
--
Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other.
·······@aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible
profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
extremely unusual.' ''
From: Ed L Cashin
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <m3hese60p0.fsf@terry.uga.edu>
Russell Senior <·······@aracnet.com> writes:
> >>>>> "Erik" == Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> Erik> I believe the purpose of the GNU GPL and "Free Software" is to
> Erik> ensure the consumers, not the creators, are free to use the code
> Erik> any way they want. This works just fine if you do not consider
> Erik> the rights of any creators, [...]
>
> Creators have every right *not* to use "Free Software", so the GNU GPL
> does not infringe anyones rights.
>
> I am not sure what this has to do with Lisp.
Check out this file in clisp, for example:
clisp-2.27/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL
--
--Ed Cashin integrit file-verification system:
·······@terry.uga.edu http://integrit.sourceforge.net/
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
Ed L Cashin wrote:
> If I release software without restricting anyone's rights to use,
> study, modify, and redistribute the software, so far so good ...
>
> Now, if MegaBucks, Inc., comes along and takes my free software, puts
> it in their product, and releases it *with* restrictions on the users'
> rights to study, modify, etc., then the software isn't free anymore
> (as released by MegaBucks).
OK, but here I come as MiniBucks, dba. and I can still go to you for the
software you released, screw MegaBucks.
I am new to this GPL-LGPL stuff, but IIUC the conduct of MegaB has no
effect on our relationship. I think this understanding is correct,
because you qualified your comment with "(as released by MegaBucks)".
Well, what do I need that for? Your version is still free.
Puzzled...
kenny
clinisys
In article <··············@terry.uga.edu>,
Ed L Cashin <·······@terry.uga.edu> writes:
> ...
> Now, if MegaBucks, Inc., comes along and takes my free software, puts
> it in their product, and releases it *with* restrictions on the users'
> rights to study, modify, etc., then the software isn't free anymore
> (as released by MegaBucks).
err ... why? it would only be iff they simultaneusly grab all
available copies and hide them. btw, afaik the gpl lets you
distribute your software also under different license agreements. so
if megabucks, inc wants to use it and distribute their product in a
restricted form, they are always free to come to you and negotiate
something mutuably agreeable
hs
--
Apart from the obvious disagreement about who the good guys are, what
is the difference between "You are either with us or against us" and
"There are only good muslim and infidels"?
In article <···············@world.std.com>,
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> Mention of at least CL, ISLISP, and Scheme can be justified easily by
> their status as standards. I decided here perhaps not to mention
> Autolisp, in spite of its size of user base, since it's a proprietary
> dialect. Emacs, on the other hand, being open source, perhaps
> deserves mention in that light. Suggesting that there be entries for
> ANSI, ISO, IEEE, "open source" and "Gnu Public License", if there are
> not already, would seem like a good idea.
From an encyclopedia's point of view, why should "open source" or "GPL'd"
implementations be given more consideration?
Mike McDonald
·······@mikemac.com
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfw7ktet79p.fsf@world.std.com>
·······@mikemac.com (Mike McDonald) writes:
>
> In article <···············@world.std.com>,
> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
> > Mention of at least CL, ISLISP, and Scheme can be justified easily by
> > their status as standards. I decided here perhaps not to mention
> > Autolisp, in spite of its size of user base, since it's a proprietary
> > dialect. Emacs, on the other hand, being open source, perhaps
> > deserves mention in that light. Suggesting that there be entries for
> > ANSI, ISO, IEEE, "open source" and "Gnu Public License", if there are
> > not already, would seem like a good idea.
>
> From an encyclopedia's point of view, why should "open source" or "GPL'd"
> implementations be given more consideration?
For the same reason that libertarianism or vegetarianism should be.
It is a cultural artifact of substantial importance to a measurably
large group of people, and one that one NOT familiar with the movement
might well like to learn about in capsule form in order to feel minimally
competent to engage in a conversation.
From the point of view of OUR dictionary entry, I think it satisfies
the same general notion of a basis marker as does the term
"standard". That is, standards are concensus actions among people who
subscribe to the notion that consensus is best achieved by standards
groups; the open source community, to some degree implements
standards, but also to some degree is sort of a community that is
anti-standard in its nature, preferring to achieve consensus by the
act of opening something to public change and seeing where that leads.
That emacs has survived this trial by fire intact suggests that it is,
de facto, a sort of standard, perhaps not in the "cast in stone" sense
but definitely in the "this has a fair degree of consensus" sense.
I think it would be political bias to exclude it in the same sense as
it is political bias to say that atheism is not a religion just because
it has no god, or in the same sense as saying "public domain" is not a
copyright issue merely becuase one doesn't register public domain things
in the copyright office or in the same sense as saying that "transparent"
is not a color-related issue just because it has no associated color
component.
In article <···············@world.std.com>,
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> wrote:
>Mention of at least CL, ISLISP, and Scheme can be justified easily by
>their status as standards.
I disagree. As far as the general public is concerned (this is a general
encyclopedia, not a CS encyclopedia), these standards, and the differences
between the dialects, are irrelevant. Would you expect the Java entry to
mention details like JFC vs. MFC (I don't do Java, so I don't know if this
is even an issue these days, or even if I'm getting the acronyms right, but
I remember it was the basis of a Sun vs. Microsoft fight a few years ago,
so just assume for the purpose of the question that they still both exist)?
There's an ANSI standard for every piece of office furniture. I would be
very surprised if the encyclopedia entry for chairs mentioned the standard
for office chairs.
I'm sure that zoologists consider the difference between field mice and
white mice to be important. But if I were writing a one-paragraph entry
for "mouse" I wouldn't waste any of its limited space on this.
The description of Lisp is already twice as long as the entries for C++ and
Java. In the grand scheme of things, that seems backwards. As gross as
those languages are, someone doing any research on contemporary
programming, as it's actually practiced in the real world, would need to
know more about those two languages than Lisp. Like it or not, Lisp is a
niche language, and unless some major vendor (read "Microsoft") adopts it,
that's how it's destined to stay.
I'm happily surprised there's an entry for Lisp at all.
Why do I think it's a good idea *not* to mention these details? Because
putting too much detail in makes things more confusing, and hinders
understanding. The entry should provide the basic flavor of what Lisp is,
without going into so much detail that it becomes inaccessible. Mentioning
that dialects exist might be appropriate, but listing them is unnecessary;
I'd make an exception for Scheme only because it doesn't incorporate "Lisp"
into its name (it doesn't take a computer scientist to guess that Common
Lisp, Emacs Lisp, and ISLISP are dialects of Lisp).
If there's a Computer Science encyclopedia, my opinions on just about
everything that has come up in this thread would be completely different.
--
Barry Margolin, ······@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
In article <·················@burlma1-snr2>, Barry Margolin wrote:
>In article <···············@world.std.com>,
>Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> wrote:
>>Mention of at least CL, ISLISP, and Scheme can be justified easily by
>>their status as standards.
>
>I disagree. As far as the general public is concerned (this is a general
>encyclopedia, not a CS encyclopedia), these standards, and the differences
>between the dialects, are irrelevant. Would you expect the Java entry to
>mention details like JFC vs. MFC (I don't do Java, so I don't know if this
>is even an issue these days, or even if I'm getting the acronyms right, but
>I remember it was the basis of a Sun vs. Microsoft fight a few years ago,
>so just assume for the purpose of the question that they still both exist)?
I agree with you; if you were to touch upon every area of human knowledge
in a general encyclopedia, you'd fill a building with dead tree matter.
Should there be entries for:
erythropoeisis
brachial plexus
3,6-dicyano-3,6-dimethylpiperidazine
Collatz conjecture
?
Erythropoeisis is the production of red blood cells. That is important to
a significantly large percentage of the population to warrant inclusion
in a general purpose reference work. :)
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>... (But on a per-seat count, depending
> on how you count it, autolisp and gnu emacs lisp may have ten times as
> many users as common lisp. Most doing only very casual one-liners in
> init files, though.)...
(with-disclaimer :nitpick ; or whatever
Autolisp is indeed a toy language but has a rather
large community of users (20% of Autocad user base
at least). It's used to aid in the drafting
process where the programs are in the 1-1000 lines
range. But it's used in the desing process too, so
the programs range from 10000 to 100000 LOC. I
maintain such a program, used to design latice
steel towers (20000 LOC rougly).)
BTW, when is coming out your interview on
slashdot.org?
Excuse my english, yo hablo espa�ol :)
--
Eduardo Mu�oz
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfw668yt6kc.fsf@world.std.com>
"Eduardo Mu�oz" <···@jet.es> writes:
> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
> >... (But on a per-seat count, depending
> > on how you count it, autolisp and gnu emacs lisp may have ten times as
> > many users as common lisp. Most doing only very casual one-liners in
> > init files, though.)...
>
> (with-disclaimer :nitpick ; or whatever
>
> Autolisp is indeed a toy language but has a rather
> large community of users (20% of Autocad user base
> at least). It's used to aid in the drafting
> process where the programs are in the 1-1000 lines
> range. But it's used in the desing process too, so
> the programs range from 10000 to 100000 LOC. I
> maintain such a program, used to design latice
> steel towers (20000 LOC rougly).)
I probably shouldn't have lumped them together. I was more remarking
on Emacs, where often an init file will set a single variable, so a
count of emacs users is perhaps an unfair count of lisp users.
Autolisp, I agree, has more of a range of users and I didn't mean to
minimize that.
> BTW, when is coming out your interview on
> slashdot.org?
I'm working on it between other activities. Spent most of the day on it
today, in fact. It should be done and published soon.
In article <············@news3.cadvision.com>,
Wade Humeniuk <········@cadvision.com> wrote:
>Here is a first shot at a new definition, ...
>
>Lisp - A computer programming language originally designed in the 1950s and
>early 1960s by a group headed by J. McCarthy at MIT. Lisp is an acronym for
>List Processing, the conceptual core for the original Lisp implementations.
>Heavily adopted for AI (Artificial Intelligence) research and development in
>the 1960s and 1970s its use prompted the development of many programming
>techniques in wide use today. Many Lisp dialects were created into the
>1980s and then consolidated into the Common Lisp ANSI standard of today.
>The main features of Lisp are; uniform and extensible syntax; its
>interactive development model (which differs from the compile-link-test
>model of the other Algol like languages); and a rich set of data types.
"Common Lisp ANSI standard" is getting into low-level
nitty-gritty, esp compared to the entries for the
other languages, which certainly have strong
standardization bodies too.
"then consolidated into ... Common Lisp of today" patly
discounts Scheme, and suggests misleadingly that
Common Lisp is the sole current descendent from Lisp
history.
--d
"Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com> wrote in message
·················@news3.cadvision.com...
> Here is a first shot at a new definition,
>
> Original
>
> LISP - Powerful computer programming language designed for manipulating
> lists of data or symbols rather than processing numerical data, used
> extensively in artificial intelligence applications. It was designed
> in the 1950s and early 1960s by a group headed by J. McCarthy at MIT.
> Its name derives from "list processor". Radically different from such
> other programming languages a ALGOL, C, C++, FORTRAN and Pascal, it
> requires large memory space and is slow in executing programs.
>
>
> New
>
> Lisp - A computer programming language originally designed in the 1950s and
> early 1960s by a group headed by J. McCarthy at MIT. Lisp is an acronym for
> List Processing, the conceptual core for the original Lisp implementations.
> Heavily adopted for AI (Artificial Intelligence) research and development in
> the 1960s and 1970s its use prompted the development of many programming
> techniques in wide use today. Many Lisp dialects were created into the
> 1980s and then consolidated into the Common Lisp ANSI standard of today.
> The main features of Lisp are; uniform and extensible syntax; its
> interactive development model (which differs from the compile-link-test
> model of the other Algol like languages); and a rich set of data types.
>
One small question: why drop the word "powerful"? They gave lisp so little
credit, we should not give away the one positive comment. Besides, the more
verbatim text that is kept, the easier it will be for them to accept.
As for dialects, I agree with others that details should be somewhere between
miniscule and absent. How about this for sentence four:
"Though there still remain many active dialects of Lisp, most were consolidated
into an ANSI standard version called Common Lisp in <insert year>."
And how about this for sentence five (because I think "interactive devolopment
model is way to specific):
"The main features of Lisp are; uniform and extensible syntax, a rich set of
data types and a flexibility that makes it suitable for symbolic, functional,
object
oriented and many other programming paradigms."
Comments?
Coby
--
(remove #\space "coby . beck @ opentechgroup . com")
>
> One small question: why drop the word "powerful"? They gave lisp so
little
> credit, we should not give away the one positive comment. Besides, the
more
> verbatim text that is kept, the easier it will be for them to accept.
>
I removed powerful because it was a subjective term. It is like "slow" and
"memory hog". It is my personal preference that adjectives like that are
not included. I do not think computer languages should be classified as
powerful. Effective, yes, expressive, yes. Maybe a better word could be
found?
> As for dialects, I agree with others that details should be somewhere
between
> miniscule and absent. How about this for sentence four:
>
> "Though there still remain many active dialects of Lisp, most were
consolidated
> into an ANSI standard version called Common Lisp in <insert year>."
>
> And how about this for sentence five (because I think "interactive
devolopment
> model is way to specific):
>
I have to disagree, I think the way one develops a program in a Lisp
environment is one its seminal features. Makes life much easier. Lisp
would not be Lisp without it.
> "The main features of Lisp are; uniform and extensible syntax, a rich set
of
> data types and a flexibility that makes it suitable for symbolic,
functional,
> object
> oriented and many other programming paradigms."
>
> Comments?
Version 3: (Shortened, removing direct mention of standards bodies, there
seems to be disagreement over including standards, especially as people are
starting to expand the discussion into GNU and their licenses)
Lisp - A group of general purpose computer programming languages originally
designed in the 1950s and early 1960s by J. McCarthy of MIT. Lisp is an
acronym for List Processing. Adopted for AI (Artificial Intelligence)
research and development in the 1960s and 1970s, Lisp quickly evolved as
new computational techniques were developed. Lisp's main features are;
symbolic processing; uniform and extensible syntax; its interactive
(compiled and interpreted) development model; a rich set of built-in data
types; dynamic memory management; and support for most programming styles.
Modern Lisp Dialects: Common Lisp, Scheme, GNU Emacs Lisp, ISLISP, EuLisp,
AutoLisp.
Wade
In article <············@news3.cadvision.com>,
Wade Humeniuk <········@cadvision.com> wrote:
>>
>> One small question: why drop the word "powerful"? They gave lisp so
>little
>> credit, we should not give away the one positive comment. Besides, the
>more
>> verbatim text that is kept, the easier it will be for them to accept.
>>
>
>I removed powerful because it was a subjective term. It is like "slow" and
>"memory hog". It is my personal preference that adjectives like that are
>not included. I do not think computer languages should be classified as
>powerful. Effective, yes, expressive, yes. Maybe a better word could be
>found?
I agree. Are there any computer languages that merit an encyclopedia entry
that *aren't* powerful? Java and C++ may be crappy, but it's in our same
power ballpark. Even modern versions of BASIC and Fortran are pretty
powerful. The lowest-power languages I can think of off the top of my head
are Bourne shell scripting, AWK, and RPG-2 (is it still used much?), and I
suspect these are all obscure enough (as far as the general public is
concerned) that there's no encyclopedia entry for them. (Yes, I know
people have written simple programs using editor macros, but I think it's
stretching things to call "sed" a programming language.)
--
Barry Margolin, ······@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
Barry Margolin <······@genuity.net> writes:
> I agree. Are there any computer languages that merit an encyclopedia entry
> that *aren't* powerful? Java and C++ may be crappy, but it's in our same
> power ballpark. Even modern versions of BASIC and Fortran are pretty
> powerful. The lowest-power languages I can think of off the top of my head
> are Bourne shell scripting, AWK, and RPG-2 (is it still used much?), and I
> suspect these are all obscure enough (as far as the general public is
> concerned) that there's no encyclopedia entry for them. (Yes, I know
> people have written simple programs using editor macros, but I think it's
> stretching things to call "sed" a programming language.)
>
I think if one was being fussy, and using the turing-equivalentness
definition of `power', old FORTRAN (pre Fortran 90?) may be the only
non turing-equivalent language they'd care about. I'm fairly sure
that sh & awk are (there's a Lisp written in awk), and even vi is,
apparently...
Of course this use of the term power is not really helpful, but I
think this kind of confusion is one reason why it's *bad* to use the term.
`expressive' seems better to me.
--tim
>>>>> On 30 Oct 2001 16:17:53 +0000, Tim Bradshaw ("Tim") writes:
Tim> I think if one was being fussy, and using the turing-equivalentness
Tim> definition of `power', old FORTRAN (pre Fortran 90?) may be the only
Tim> non turing-equivalent language they'd care about. I'm fairly sure
Tim> that sh & awk are (there's a Lisp written in awk), and even vi is,
Tim> apparently...
FORTRAN is not turing-equivalent???
Umm.
You can LISP in it.
Christopher Stacy <······@spacy.Boston.MA.US> writes:
> FORTRAN is not turing-equivalent???
> Umm.
> You can LISP in it.
Yes, it isn't, for suitable values of FORTRAN (at least till 77, don't
know about 90, but I expect it is TE). No recursive functions, and no
dynamic data allocation to allow you to fake them using the usual
trick: it's finite-state.
(This excludes using I/O: you can probably show that it is TE if you
are allowed to use files as a tape for a TM.)
Of course this brings out both how silly the TE requirement is, and
how somehow useful it can be - you can obviously solve very real
problems in FORTRAN, including probably arbitrarily good simulations
of large physical systems like people; yet having recursion would be a
significant win for people writing FORTRAN (and it probably does have
it now of course).
--tim
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfw8zdretyi.fsf@world.std.com>
Tim Bradshaw <···@tfeb.org> writes:
>
> Christopher Stacy <······@spacy.Boston.MA.US> writes:
>
> > FORTRAN is not turing-equivalent???
> > Umm.
> > You can LISP in it.
>
> Yes, it isn't, for suitable values of FORTRAN (at least till 77, don't
> know about 90, but I expect it is TE). No recursive functions, and no
> dynamic data allocation to allow you to fake them using the usual
> trick: it's finite-state.
Then so was Maclisp on the PDP10. It had a 256K address space. And, come
to think of it, all of my computer systems are finite in size. Does
pretending that finite size is smaller and providing an operator that
grows things with your eyes closed, not seeing the upper bound make the
basis for Turing equivalence? I think not.
> (This excludes using I/O: you can probably show that it is TE if you
> are allowed to use files as a tape for a TM.)
Don't forget the requirement to hotswap new drives. We all have that, right?
Because otherwise there is only finite filespace.
> Of course this brings out both how silly the TE requirement is, and
> how somehow useful it can be - you can obviously solve very real
> problems in FORTRAN, including probably arbitrarily good simulations
> of large physical systems like people; yet having recursion would be a
> significant win for people writing FORTRAN (and it probably does have
> it now of course).
I'm sorry. I don't believe FORTRAN is qualitatively any more crippled
than any other language. I thought the requirements for Turing Equivalence
were simpler than this. Like the ability to add 1 (or was i subtract?),
skip if zero, and a couple of other things like that. Oh, and have one of
those pesky little tape drives mounted with an infinite tape.
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> Don't forget the requirement to hotswap new drives. We all have that, right?
> Because otherwise there is only finite filespace.
Provided you have some persistent way of encoding the volatile state
you don't need to hot swap. ``Please power down the machine, attach a
new scsi drive and reboot.''
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> Tim Bradshaw <···@tfeb.org> writes:
>
> >
> > Christopher Stacy <······@spacy.Boston.MA.US> writes:
> >
> > > FORTRAN is not turing-equivalent???
> > > Umm.
> > > You can LISP in it.
> >
> > Yes, it isn't, for suitable values of FORTRAN (at least till 77, don't
> > know about 90, but I expect it is TE). No recursive functions, and no
> > dynamic data allocation to allow you to fake them using the usual
> > trick: it's finite-state.
>
> Then so was Maclisp on the PDP10. It had a 256K address space. And, come
> to think of it, all of my computer systems are finite in size. Does
> pretending that finite size is smaller and providing an operator that
> grows things with your eyes closed, not seeing the upper bound make the
> basis for Turing equivalence? I think not.
Obviously, we don't have infinite memory. But part of Turing machines
is to be able to run off the right end of the tape. (Speaking of a
world without disks or tapes for a moment) without the ability to
dynamically allocate memory, you can't express that. You could guess
and allocate a really big block, but what if it's not big enough?
Your language just can't express the program. Of course, just because
you can express a program in a langues is no guarantee that you can
find a machine big enough to run it, but that's an issue of finding
sufficient hardware, not of the expressiveness of the language.
Of course, FORTRAN *could* write to tapes, which was used in place of
dynamic memory allocation (if the old FORTRAN I've been exposed to is
at all typical). It was perfectly Turing-equivalent, any claims to
the contrary being the result of people being too lazy to think the
problem through themselves, and just seeing that another languages
proof of TE doesn't apply to FORTRAN.
> > (This excludes using I/O: you can probably show that it is TE if you
> > are allowed to use files as a tape for a TM.)
>
> Don't forget the requirement to hotswap new drives. We all have that, right?
> Because otherwise there is only finite filespace.
Again, the FORTRAN *language* doesn't see this. It can see a
sufficiently long tape, and it's up to you to find it :)
> > Of course this brings out both how silly the TE requirement is, and
> > how somehow useful it can be - you can obviously solve very real
> > problems in FORTRAN, including probably arbitrarily good simulations
> > of large physical systems like people; yet having recursion would be a
> > significant win for people writing FORTRAN (and it probably does have
> > it now of course).
>
> I'm sorry. I don't believe FORTRAN is qualitatively any more crippled
> than any other language. I thought the requirements for Turing Equivalence
> were simpler than this. Like the ability to add 1 (or was i subtract?),
> skip if zero, and a couple of other things like that. Oh, and have one of
> those pesky little tape drives mounted with an infinite tape.
Tape drive, infinite stack, it's all good, they both work.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfwelnj782b.fsf@world.std.com>
···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> Of course, FORTRAN *could* write to tapes, which was used in place of
> dynamic memory allocation (if the old FORTRAN I've been exposed to is
> at all typical). It was perfectly Turing-equivalent, any claims to
> the contrary being the result of people being too lazy to think the
> problem through themselves, and just seeing that another languages
> proof of TE doesn't apply to FORTRAN.
Precisely.
When I first learned BASIC, I had an 8KB BASIC-in-ROM minicomputer,
but it had a tape drive, and frustrated by the fixed memory it had
in the machine, I figured out how to allocate a "heap" with pointer
structures on a tape so that I wasn't bounded by the machine's memory
size. Imagine how pleased I was when I got to MIT and found that Lisp
did this kind of thing for you automatically... But I'd say what
I had even before that was still Turing powerful since it was fully
capable of stopping and saying "Please insert a tape into the drive"
and then of waiting while it looked something up on tape.
Ditto with FORTRAN, which I used before I found BASIC, on an IBM 1130
with punch cards. It could bug the "operator" to ask for other media
it wanted mounted.
(The Fortran-to-Lisp translator I later wrote at MIT just had an array
of devices corresponding to each numbered device that Fortran used,
and you could put any device handler in that slot. I suspect the same
could be done with IBM JCL, though I hated bothering with that stuff
so was blissfully ignorant of most of what it offered me in
capability.)
Those old systems and languages may seem so primitive now, but the
people using them (like me) were VERY motivated to push every feature
to its absolute limit, so what might seem like superhuman effort that
no one would have bothered with was probably routine at the time. We
really all secretly knew that the computers we were using were a
placeholder for what we wanted to be using, and we tried to program
more to our imaginations than to the reality...
Anyway, I see no lack of Turing power for either of them.
In article <···············@world.std.com>, "Kent M Pitman"
<······@world.std.com> wrote:
> ···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
>> Of course, FORTRAN *could* write to tapes, which was used in place of
>> dynamic memory allocation (if the old FORTRAN I've been exposed to is
>> at all typical). It was perfectly Turing-equivalent, any claims to the
>> contrary being the result of people being too lazy to think the problem
>> through themselves, and just seeing that another languages proof of TE
>> doesn't apply to FORTRAN.
>
> Precisely.
>
> When I first learned BASIC, I had an 8KB BASIC-in-ROM minicomputer, but
> it had a tape drive, and frustrated by the fixed memory it had in the
> machine, I figured out how to allocate a "heap" with pointer structures
> on a tape so that I wasn't bounded by the machine's memory size. Imagine
> how pleased I was when I got to MIT and found that Lisp did this kind of
> thing for you automatically... But I'd say what I had even before that
> was still Turing powerful since it was fully capable of stopping and
> saying "Please insert a tape into the drive" and then of waiting while
> it looked something up on tape.
...
> Anyway, I see no lack of Turing power for either of them.
Ever since being exposed to SAS (a statistical "language") at a company I
worked for, I've long wondered whether SAS (without the macro language)
was turing equivalent.
Of course the macro language by itself is turing equivalent I believe,
since it supports recursion with an unbounded stack.
But SAS itself doesn't seem to be able to code an infinite loop, and
therefore is trivially non TE.
anyone have any more info about SAS and turing equivalence?
also, the simplest way to prove turing equivalence that I can think of is
to encode a simulator for a turing machine. Alternatively encode an
interpreter for lambda calculus.
If I'm correct that SAS is less than TE, then I believe that this counts
as a demonstration that turing equivalence is important for general
purpose programming, Since the amount of time spent by people at this
company programming "macros" in SAS to get around deficiencies in the
language was hideous.
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> wrote in message news:<···············@world.std.com>...
> Then so was Maclisp on the PDP10. It had a 256K address space. And, come
> to think of it, all of my computer systems are finite in size. Does
> pretending that finite size is smaller and providing an operator that
> grows things with your eyes closed, not seeing the upper bound make the
> basis for Turing equivalence? I think not.
>
I think this is a difference between implementation and specification:
did the maclisp *spec* say that there could only be 256kwords of
space, or that it was some build-time constant? FORTRAN says
basically this.
And of course you can escape with I/O, practically anything can, which
is why I excluded it (see below).
However I think you've missed my points. There are basically three:
1. Using the term `power' for an informal description of a programming
language
is kind of dangerous since it is so close to a formal term.
2. Power in the formal sense turns out not to be as interesting as it
is made out to be in CS / AI courses, because non-TE languages (in
particular the subset of fortran which does no I/O) can do good
simulations of interesting things because of some convenient features
of physics like continuity.
3. *However* it turns out that, actually, non-TE languages or
languages with significant non-TE subsets turn out to be a significant
pain to use. Although I actually quite like FORTRAN, I have found the
lack of recursion, and even more so the inability to
dyamically-allocate arrays to fit the problem to be significantly
painful. (OK, you can do this on almost all systems in practice, but
it's a significant pain if your code needs to run on n varying
machines and you're not smart enough to find out if anyone has written
the portability layer you need.) Even more so is the trick of using
I/O to simulate memory: sure you can do it, but it's *really* a pain -
like overlays are a really a pain.
I just thought it was interesting that these unpleasant aspects of the
language do correlate with the fact that subsets of it are non-TE (I'm
avoiding defining subset here because I can see I'll just get bogged
down, forgive me). Is be like Lisp without CONS & recursion (and
without any other compound data types) and where MAKE-LIST only takes
literal numbers as arguments. Sure you can use it, but it's just not
fun.
That's all I was trying to say.
--tim
(This is the first article I've posted through google, since the ssh
connection to my proper machine seems to have been permanently
firewalled off (I need a better job...). I hope it doesn't have horrid
long lines &c.)
Barry Margolin wrote:
> Java and C++ may be crappy, but it's in our same
> power ballpark. Even modern versions of BASIC and Fortran are pretty
> powerful.
Hang on, J/C++ are in our ballpark because we all are more powerful than
a Jacquard loom? (paraphrasing slightly <g>).
"powerful" cannot mean Turing equivalent, it has to mean expressive
power. (I just made that up.) Meaning given two languages which are
t/equiv, if i can express my semantics ten times faster in one then it
is ten times more powerful (as long as it is also fast, which Lisp is).
anyway, after we get the definition straight we should post it in java
and C++ ng's and invite comment. :)
Pick a fight. Gabriel (LUGM '99) tossed that idea out and everybody
chuckled, but it is probably the best way to spread the word. As a
matter of fact, if we hit the Perl and Python ngs at the same time we
could really make some headlines.
I say we find someone solid with a thick skin and a sense of humor and
have them walk point, everybody else backs them up with
facts/info/references/experience stories/code samples/whatever. We need
expertise on the languages we go after as on LIsp.
Oh, and we'll have no truck with this different languages for different
purposes moral relativistic garbage. Lisp is Best, period. :)
kenny
clinisys
In article <·················@nyc.rr.com>,
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>Barry Margolin wrote:
>> Java and C++ may be crappy, but it's in our same
>> power ballpark. Even modern versions of BASIC and Fortran are pretty
>> powerful.
>
>Hang on, J/C++ are in our ballpark because we all are more powerful than
>a Jacquard loom? (paraphrasing slightly <g>).
Basically, yes. If you're using "powerful" as an absolute, rather in a
comparison, there's essentially just two choices: powerful and not
powerful. All computer languages have to be assigned into one of those
categories. If C and Java are considered "not powerful", then almost all
programming languages that have ever been used would be in that group, and
then it's not a very useful categorization.
IMHO, a powerful programming language is one that has a wide variety of
control and data structures. Examples of non-powerful languages are early
versions of BASIC (data structures were just numbers, strings, and arrays;
control structures were just IF-GOTO, FOR loops, and subroutines with no
parameters) and Fortran (similar to BASIC except subroutines accepted
parameters).
Java and C++ are both very powerful languages. We may not think they're
*as* powerful as Lisp (an opinion that I think many of their proponents
might argue against), but as language power goes they're closer to the top
of the spectrum than the bottom.
The problem with expressivity in these languages is primarily their cryptic
syntax, *not* so much their lack of power.
--
Barry Margolin, ······@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
In article <················@burlma1-snr2>, Barry Margolin
<······@genuity.net> wrote:
> The problem with expressivity in these languages is primarily their cryptic
> syntax, *not* so much their lack of power.
I disagree. No language other than Lisp allows you to define new
control constructs. Lisp's syntax certainly makes this easier, but
there's no inherent reason why it should be impossible to define
new control constructs using a more traditional syntax, e.g.:
define-control-construct critical-method { body } :: {
turn_off_interrupts()
##body##
turn_on_interrupts()
}
or something like that. IMO this makes Lisp fundamentally more
powerful than any other (currently existing) language.
Another example: no other language allows you to define new syntax
for the parser, which in turn allows you to embed new kinds of data
descriptions inside your code, rather than forcing you to place any
text that doesn't conform to the (fixed) lexical syntax of the language
either inside a string or in a separate file that must be processed
at run time rather than at compile time. The problem here is not that
C's syntax is cryptic, but rather that it is non-extensible.
Erann Gat
···@jpl.nasa.gov
Erann Gat wrote:
>
> In article <················@burlma1-snr2>, Barry Margolin
> <······@genuity.net> wrote:
>
> > The problem with expressivity in these languages is primarily their cryptic
> > syntax, *not* so much their lack of power.
>
> I disagree. No language other than Lisp allows you to define new
> control constructs.
Tcl certainly allows it.
> Lisp's syntax certainly makes this easier, but
> there's no inherent reason why it should be impossible to define
> new control constructs using a more traditional syntax, e.g.:
>
> define-control-construct critical-method { body } :: {
> turn_off_interrupts()
> ##body##
> turn_on_interrupts()
> }
Or, in Tcl:
proc critical_method {body} {
turn_off_interrupts
uplevel 1 $body
turn_on_interrupts
}
(though both should really make a bit more effort
to deal with errors in "body")
> or something like that. IMO this makes Lisp fundamentally more
> powerful than any other (currently existing) language.
>
> Another example: no other language allows you to define new syntax
> for the parser,
err...Tcl allows it...
"Erann Gat" <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
·························@jansma-mac.jpl.nasa.gov...
> In article <················@burlma1-snr2>, Barry Margolin
> <······@genuity.net> wrote:
>
> > The problem with expressivity in these languages is primarily their
cryptic
> > syntax, *not* so much their lack of power.
>
> I disagree. No language other than Lisp allows you to define new
> control constructs. Lisp's syntax certainly makes this easier, but
> there's no inherent reason why it should be impossible to define
> new control constructs using a more traditional syntax, e.g.:
>
> define-control-construct critical-method { body } :: {
> turn_off_interrupts()
> ##body##
> turn_on_interrupts()
> }
>
> or something like that. IMO this makes Lisp fundamentally more
> powerful than any other (currently existing) language.
>
In Dylan, where '?body:body' means "a lexical construct whose
parse matches the 'body' type"... I took the liberty of using
'block ... cleanup' to pretend the code is a little more correct.
define macro critical-method
{ critical-method ?body:body end }
=> { block ()
turn-off-interrupts();
?body
cleanup
turn-on-interrupts();
end }
end macro;
Jonathan Bachrach, presently at MIT, will be presenting a paper
at OOPSLA this year on how to do a Dylan-like pattern-matching
macro system for Java.
Dylan doesn't let you hack the read table like Lisp does.
Barry Margolin <······@genuity.net> writes:
> Java and C++ are both very powerful languages. We may not think they're
> *as* powerful as Lisp (an opinion that I think many of their proponents
> might argue against), but as language power goes they're closer to the top
> of the spectrum than the bottom.
>
> The problem with expressivity in these languages is primarily their cryptic
> syntax, *not* so much their lack of power.
A lot of people are *really* prone to underestimating C++'s power and
expressiveness. The reason for this is easy enough: the language is a
terrifying mess, and its features aren't (quite) orthogonal. I mean,
it's lacking real macros, sure, and because of that it'll always be
somewhat behind languages that have them, in terms of expressiveness,
but I think a lot of people get burned by C++ for the same reason they
get burned by Lisp. They get a lame, minimal sort of exposure to it
early on, that shows off a lot of the power it had back in 1986. So,
they think it's just C, plus some stuff. And this isn't exactly
helped by the majority of C++ programmers who learn just enough of
their language to get done what they need to do, and no more.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@hurricane.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> A lot of people are *really* prone to underestimating C++'s power and
> expressiveness.
As a C++ ignorant, I take the patterns literature (and also talks about
patterns I've attended on conferences) as significant evidence to the
contrary.
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> ···@hurricane.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > A lot of people are *really* prone to underestimating C++'s power and
> > expressiveness.
>
> As a C++ ignorant, I take the patterns literature (and also talks about
> patterns I've attended on conferences) as significant evidence to the
> contrary.
I don't understand this. Are you saying C++ isn't powerful; that
people don't underestimate its power; or that people overestimate its
power; or, what?
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> I don't understand this. Are you saying C++ isn't powerful;
I doubt both its power and its expressiveness.
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> ···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > I don't understand this. Are you saying C++ isn't powerful;
>
> I doubt both its power and its expressiveness.
Got it, so you're saying you're ignorant of a language which is very
difficult to fully understand, and you're taking other people's word
on it that it's not that powerful or expressive. Since you seem to be
in the business of taking people on their word, maybe you should take
me on mine and doubt the ability of the doubters to fully use C++.
Think of all the worst examples of someone who "knows what they're
doing" in Lisp, and to whom the language seems stiff and powerless
(like maybe they tried to do MD5 using a character stream). Now
imagine if CL were really difficult to fully understand, rather than
being amazingly easy and orthogonal. That's the situation with C++.
Many perported "experts" in the language don't really know what
they're doing, both the ones who praise it, and the ones who detract
from it. Some of these "highly skilled" C++ people *would* fully
understand CL if they put the same amount of effort into it, but C++
takes a lot more.
I've seen people who are very comfortable with the entirety of the C++
language, and it's really quite amazing. It's a powerful, expressive
language. Of course, it's absurdly difficult, and has weird, obscure
syntax, and these are definite problems with the language (and reasons
why I'll never be one of those people who's very comfortable with it),
but I think a lot of misconceptions about C++ are because people
haven't put in the absurd effort it takes to learn the language fully.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> [C++ is] a powerful, expressive language.
> I think a lot of misconceptions about C++ are because people haven't
> put in the absurd effort it takes to learn the language fully.
It can't be `expressive' if it takes an `absurd effort' to express
things in it.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfwitcumpu2.fsf@world.std.com>
···@itasoftware.com writes:
> ···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > [C++ is] a powerful, expressive language.
>
> > I think a lot of misconceptions about C++ are because people haven't
> > put in the absurd effort it takes to learn the language fully.
>
> It can't be `expressive' if it takes an `absurd effort' to express
> things in it.
Nonsense.
I.e., "thanks for your absurd yet expressive effort to debunk this."
;-)
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> ···@itasoftware.com writes:
>
> > ···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> >
> > > [C++ is] a powerful, expressive language.
> >
> > > I think a lot of misconceptions about C++ are because people haven't
> > > put in the absurd effort it takes to learn the language fully.
> >
> > It can't be `expressive' if it takes an `absurd effort' to express
> > things in it.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> I.e., "thanks for your absurd yet expressive effort to debunk this."
>
> ;-)
I would have said `absurd *amount* of effort', but that would have
been misquoting. And sure, one could always *invest* an absurd amount
of effort being expressive, but the issue is that C++ *requires* one
to.
The amount of effort it is taking to express this is absurd.
···@itasoftware.com wrote:
> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
>
>>···@itasoftware.com writes:
>>
>>
>>>···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>[C++ is] a powerful, expressive language.
>>>>
>>>>I think a lot of misconceptions about C++ are because people haven't
>>>>put in the absurd effort it takes to learn the language fully.
>>>>
>>>It can't be `expressive' if it takes an `absurd effort' to express
>>>things in it.
>>>
>>Nonsense.
>>
>>I.e., "thanks for your absurd yet expressive effort to debunk this."
>>
>>;-)
>>
>
> I would have said `absurd *amount* of effort', but that would have
> been misquoting.
<heh-heh> I thnk you /did/ misquote! Didn't he say the absurd effort was
in /learning/ C++ fully? I thought Burdick was saying that once once had
with great effort mastered C++ it was indeed easy to work with it.
Now for my money I never want to sit thru a link again, nor do I want to
work with a language that cannot do the equivalent of (list 1 :two
"three), nor could I live without lisp macros, and no matter how much
C++ I learn I still won't be able to do those things. But getting back
to your original remark, I was thinking more along these lines,
something even stronger:
"The Tao says no language that is hard to learn can be easy to work
with, no matter how well you learn it."
In other words, the fundamental misconceptualization which must underly
a hard-to-learn language will also be manifested in one's ability to
live with it even if mastered.
kenny
clinisys
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> ···@itasoftware.com wrote:
>
> > Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> >
> >>···@itasoftware.com writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> [C++ is] a powerful, expressive language. I think a lot of
> >>>> misconceptions about C++ are because people haven't
> >>>>put in the absurd effort it takes to learn the language fully.
> >>>>
> >>>It can't be `expressive' if it takes an `absurd effort' to express
> >>>things in it.
> >>>
> >>Nonsense.
> >>
> >>I.e., "thanks for your absurd yet expressive effort to debunk this."
> >>
> >>;-)
> >>
> > I would have said `absurd *amount* of effort', but that would have
> > been misquoting.
>
>
> <heh-heh> I thnk you /did/ misquote! Didn't he say the absurd effort
> was in /learning/ C++ fully? I thought Burdick was saying that once
> once had with great effort mastered C++ it was indeed easy to work
> with it.
Indeed, that's exactly what I said.
> Now for my money I never want to sit thru a link again, nor do I want
> to work with a language that cannot do the equivalent of (list 1 :two
> "three), nor could I live without lisp macros, and no matter how much
> C++ I learn I still won't be able to do those things. But getting back
> to your original remark, I was thinking more along these lines,
> something even stronger:
>
> "The Tao says no language that is hard to learn can be easy to work
> with, no matter how well you learn it."
I'm a staunch materialist; I wouldn't trust the Tao as a source of
wisdom farther than I can throw it, much less some
pseudo-Orientalistic guide to programming that tries to get
credibility through false association with Lao Tsu. (I have no idea
if this was the original intent of the author, or if it was just
supposed to be "cute", but certainly a lot of its proponents buy into
it on an Orientalist level)
I'm sure there are plenty of difficult-to-learn languages that, once
learned, aren't easy to use. Rather than a language composed of
90-degree angles, C++ seems mostly composed of 30, 60, and 45-degree
angles. That is, things fit together, but you pretty much need to be
an expert to know what piece to grab when. Yeah, it's gonna involve a
hell of a lot more typing than Lisp, but it does aspire to allow the
user to use a variety of paradigms, and, with GC (which is allowed,
and might even make it into a future revision of the standard), even
semi-functional style! One tip-off I've noticed that someone hasn't
learned C++ well enough to be comfortable with it is if they write
2000~5000 LOC without using a single function-object. *I* sure as
hell can't remember half the good things in C++, and have to
constantly go to my reference book, just to remember things like, "oh
yeah, I *can* make a closure-like-thing ... forgot about that", but
for those who *can* remember them, they get to use them to express
themselves. If you can't remember how funciton-objects work, you
don't use them, and find yourself constrained in what you can do. But
if you can rember how things work (the absurd effort -- both in
quantity and quality), you have a lot of tools to express yourself,
which is no longer an absurd amount or quality of effort.
Naturally, closures shouldn't be hard. Generic code shouldn't be
hard. You shouldn't need 1000 potentially redundant typedefs just to
avoid deciding type issues before you're ready to. Multiple-dispatch
shouldn't require weird overloaded functions that operate
syntactically differently than methods. The whole non-virtual method
nonsense is a mess.
(Common) Lisp makes things easy to do, and easy to learn. It's easy
to fit the parts together without having to be able to remember the
entire spec. But if remembering the entire spec allows you to fit the
parts together, I'd call that expressive and powerful. For those who
can/will invest the effort in getting to that point. And I'd call it
a mess for everyone else.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
"Thomas F. Burdick" wrote:
>
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> > "The Tao says no language that is hard to learn can be easy to work
> > with, no matter how well you learn it."
>
> I'm a staunch materialist; I wouldn't trust the Tao as a source of
> wisdom farther than I can throw it...
Ah yes, Johnson, Berkeley and the rock. :) Good for you. My coding guide
is:
"Learn to empty yourself and be filled by the Tao, the way a valley
empties itself into a river."
Some programmers are so smart they create terrible code; their genius
overcomes all consequent difficulties, so they think they are doing good
work. Been there, done that. Now if I am going one way with the code and
I feel resistance, I change direction. I try to be like a good dance
partner when the other has the lead. Except I do not know what partner I
am following, so for fun I call it the Tao.
kenny
clinisys
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Now for my money I never want to sit thru a link again, nor do I want
> to work with a language that cannot do the equivalent of (list 1 :two
> "three), nor could I live without lisp macros, and no matter how much
> C++ I learn I still won't be able to do those things.
You can't even write a working version of EQ in the language!
* Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
| In other words, the fundamental misconceptualization which must underly a
| hard-to-learn language will also be manifested in one's ability to live
| with it even if mastered.
Hm. Can the ideas behind C++ be re-expressed sanely? There should be a
lot of really good ideas and good material in that language, but I tend
to believe that the sheer pain of expressing oneself in it creates a
"creative climate" that produces really weird results. It is very much
like the SGML/XML crowd, who also do amazingly stupid things because of
the sheer painfulness of working with their misconceptualization of their
core problems and solutions.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
> | In other words, the fundamental misconceptualization which must underly
a
> | hard-to-learn language will also be manifested in one's ability to live
> | with it even if mastered.
>
> Hm. Can the ideas behind C++ be re-expressed sanely? There should be a
> lot of really good ideas and good material in that language, but I tend
> to believe that the sheer pain of expressing oneself in it creates a
> "creative climate" that produces really weird results. It is very much
> like the SGML/XML crowd, who also do amazingly stupid things because of
> the sheer painfulness of working with their misconceptualization of
their
> core problems and solutions.
For me the largest impediment to writing a computer program is that when you
start you do not know what you are doing. Ironically when you are done
writing the program then (hopefully) you now know what you are doing. With
languages like C++ you have to begin worrying right away about data types,
since you cannot do any programming without specifying the interface. C++
created hurdes to develop programs since it added classes to C. Now people
have to think that everything that they now do has to be written as a class.
On top of that there is inheritence, and now (some) programmers believe to
write a good C++ program you _have_ to use inheritence (no matter how
contrived it is). The effect of this is to immediately get bogged down with
the concern that to use a language with object oriented techniques is that
you have to use them all.
With this mentality that everything is a class, that everything can be
conceptualized as a hieracrchy of objects, there is an illusion that things
which are similar are close enough to be _coded_ as subclasses of some
higher concept. This leads some programmers to chase the golden goose.
Even using Common Lisp I find that it takes me longer (at least for smaller
problems) to use CLOS instead of just whipping up structure and not letting
the idea of inheritence/classes cross my mind. Lists, arrays, property
lists, association lists...
From starting to code a solution in C++ to actually getting the first and
primitive version to run is a long haul with very little progress to be
seen. In Lisp, little things, whether they be utility functions, interface
specs or conceptual frameworks of code can be quickly be written which
further clarify my thoughts. So to go from an ignorant beginning to an
informed end is much shorter in Lisp. It facilitates my solving the
problem. Further, with its rich datatypes, memory management and the
thought and care put in by the developers of Common Lisp (which seems to
forsee most of my needs) I can concern myself with solving the problem and
not worry about the picky details. Lisp is more than just a programming
language, it is a way to develop programs.
Wade
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com>
> | In other words, the fundamental misconceptualization which must underly a
> | hard-to-learn language will also be manifested in one's ability to live
> | with it even if mastered.
>
> Hm. Can the ideas behind C++ be re-expressed sanely?
If there are sane object-oriented ideas that C++ claims to follow, it
does such a poor job of doing so that the claim itself is insane.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> Hm. Can the ideas behind C++ be re-expressed sanely? There should be a
> lot of really good ideas and good material in that language, but I tend
> to believe that the sheer pain of expressing oneself in it creates a
> "creative climate" that produces really weird results.
"The Design and Evolution of C++" by Stroustrup should be required
reading by would be language designers, if only to know what to
avoid. In the first chapter, he describes his experience with Simula,
which he highly praises for expressiveness, modularity and ease of
programming. Then comes the following sentence: "The implementation of
Simula, however, did not scale in the same way. ... My conclusion at
the time was that the Simula implementation (as opposed to the Simula
language) was geared to small programs and was inherently unsuitable
for larger programs." Now instead of researching compilation
strategies for Simula and making a better implementation he goes off
and invents C++. You could eliminate about half of C++ pain points by
removing this one decision: "In Simula, it is not possible to have
local or global variables of class types; that is, every object of a
class must be allocated on the free store using the new
operator. Measurements of my Cambridge simulator had convinced me this
was a major source of inefficiency." One implementation isn't
optimised for a feature and so the feature can't be implemented
efficiently.
I'm fairly certain that if the same intellectual effort had been
poured into Simula compilers that has been wasted^Wused on C++
compilers, we would have far better programming environments today.
--
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be>
She says, "Honey, you're a Bastard of great proportion."
He says, "Darling, I plead guilty to that sin."
Cowboy Junkies -- A few simple words
* Lieven Marchand wrote:
> [(Quoting Stroustrup)]
> "In Simula, it is not possible to have
> local or global variables of class types; that is, every object of a
> class must be allocated on the free store using the new
> operator. Measurements of my Cambridge simulator had convinced me this
> was a major source of inefficiency."
Do I parse this correctly? What he seems to be saying is that heap
allocation is a major source of inefficiency. Did decent GCs exist
when he designed C++? did he know about them?
> One implementation isn't
> optimised for a feature and so the feature can't be implemented
> efficiently.
I am now terrified that the billions of dollars spent on C++ have been
spent solely because someone couldn't work out the difference between
a language and an implementation of that language, and used data about
the latter to draw conclusions about the former. This can't be true,
can it? Oh dear.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Lieven Marchand wrote:
>
> > [(Quoting Stroustrup)]
>
> > "In Simula, it is not possible to have
> > local or global variables of class types; that is, every object of a
> > class must be allocated on the free store using the new
> > operator. Measurements of my Cambridge simulator had convinced me this
> > was a major source of inefficiency."
>
> Do I parse this correctly? What he seems to be saying is that heap
> allocation is a major source of inefficiency. Did decent GCs exist
> when he designed C++? did he know about them?
You parsed it correctly. Further in the paragraph, he goes on: "For
example, measurements showed that more than 80% of the time was spent
in the garbage collector despite the fact that resource management was
part of the simulated system so that no garbage was ever produced."
I'm quite willing to believe GCs then weren't what they are now, but
there probably was a way to tell the system not to gc even then, and
even if there wasn't, adding it to the implementation would have been
far more efficient than designing and implementing a new language.
> I am now terrified that the billions of dollars spent on C++ have been
> spent solely because someone couldn't work out the difference between
> a language and an implementation of that language, and used data about
> the latter to draw conclusions about the former. This can't be true,
> can it? Oh dear.
That's the conclusion I draw from the first chapter of that book. An
instructive read. Lisp afficionados might be interested to know that
the C++ precursor C with Classes had :before and :after methods but
they were removed because too few people used them.
--
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be>
She says, "Honey, you're a Bastard of great proportion."
He says, "Darling, I plead guilty to that sin."
Cowboy Junkies -- A few simple words
* Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be>
| You parsed it correctly. Further in the paragraph, he goes on: "For
| example, measurements showed that more than 80% of the time was spent in
| the garbage collector despite the fact that resource management was part
| of the simulated system so that no garbage was ever produced."
|
| I'm quite willing to believe GCs then weren't what they are now, but
| there probably was a way to tell the system not to gc even then, and even
| if there wasn't, adding it to the implementation would have been far more
| efficient than designing and implementing a new language.
Garbage collection has led people astray several times. It seems to be
somewhat like taxation -- people who do not want to think things through
tend to get ticked off by this cost that they do not accept, but if they
do not see it, they accept it nonetheless, such as when the malloc/free
implementation most C and C++ systems use does not measure the time it
uses so nobody can really tell without profiling the whole application.
Case in point: Emacs used to tell people that it was garbage collecting.
A lot of people complained. So I removed the message and let users at
the U of Oslo CS Dept use the modified Emacs. Several people thought
that Emacs had become more responsive (*snicker*) and nobody complained
about the gc pauses that were no longer announced. This change was
accepted and available to the public from Emacs 19.31. (The variable
garbage-collection-message controls the behavior. Set it non-nil to see
how much you get annoyed by the gc messages.)
Incidentally, the U of Oslo CS Dept taught Simula in its introductory CS
classes. It was indeed a language that forced upon the implementation an
amazingly high overhead. But regardless of the inherent overhead, the
compiler implementation was not exactly very optimized and the runtime
system was bloated, its I/O model was designed for batch processing with
punched cards and line printers, and while it left most students with an
understanding of the concepts of object-oriented programming (at least as
it applied to simulation purposes), it was not a language anyone would
want to use for real applications. From reading the specification (a
nice little booklet), it appeared hard to remove the inherent overhead
that the langauge required of any implementation, and this was not just
the garbage collection issue.
In general, it seems to be a very serious mistake to report the time
spent in garbage collection or even report that you did collect garbage
at all. Too many users will get ticked off by this useless information
and draw the wrong conclusions. Bjarne Stroustrup is not the first to
reach a seriously flawed conclusion from a personal grudge with garbage
collection, and he is very unlikely to be the last.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia
Date:
Message-ID: <sfwelnfrho1.fsf@world.std.com>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> Garbage collection has led people astray several times. It seems to be
> somewhat like taxation -- people who do not want to think things through
> tend to get ticked off by this cost that they do not accept, but if they
> do not see it, they accept it nonetheless,
For various reasons, I'm not too sure about this particular analogy.
But I liked the rest of the discussion.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> Case in point: Emacs used to tell people that it was garbage collecting.
[snip]
> about the gc pauses that were no longer announced. This change was
> accepted and available to the public from Emacs 19.31. (The variable
> garbage-collection-message controls the behavior. Set it non-nil to see
> how much you get annoyed by the gc messages.)
Ah. so YOU're responsible for this! I wondered were all those
messages went... I thought maybe they took the garbage collection�
out of emacs. ;-)
Moral: I should read the NEWS files more carefully when I get a
new version...
�[or maybe just removing the _garbage_ would have sufficed? :-)]
--
It would be difficult to construe Larry Wall, in article
this as a feature. <·····················@netlabs.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> Garbage collection has led people astray several times. It seems to be
> somewhat like taxation -- people who do not want to think things through
> tend to get ticked off by this cost that they do not accept, but if they
> do not see it, they accept it nonetheless...
I like this: The Income Tax versus VAT approach to memory allocation...
:)w
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> amazingly high overhead. But regardless of the inherent overhead, the
> compiler implementation was not exactly very optimized and the runtime
> system was bloated,
There was, however, _originally_, a really good Simula implementation
used at the University of Oslo: The DEC 10 one (not the DEC 20 one,
that was basically the DEC 10 one running in some kind of compatibility
mode (I don't really remember much of the details)). The runtime system
of the DEC 10 simula was able to load most of the code into the "sharable
high segment" of TOPS-10 (shared by all users), so each new user process
would only contribute minimally to the total memory usage.
--
(espen)
In article <···············@cley.com>, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>* Lieven Marchand wrote:
>
>> [(Quoting Stroustrup)]
>
>> "In Simula, it is not possible to have
>> local or global variables of class types; that is, every object of a
>> class must be allocated on the free store using the new
>> operator. Measurements of my Cambridge simulator had convinced me this
>> was a major source of inefficiency."
>
>Do I parse this correctly? What he seems to be saying is that heap
>allocation is a major source of inefficiency. Did decent GCs exist
>when he designed C++? did he know about them?
Does he say what *kind* of inefficiency? In the C++ ARM, he writes,
for instance, that there are *space* inefficiencies when reference
semantics are used for composing objects, because of the overhead of
allocating separate objects, and the extra space for the pointers.
This is basically true; using nested class membership, you can
achieve good economy of space in C++, and the space can be allocated
all at once, the size being statically determined by the type.
The problem is that nontrivial C++ programs are chock full of
reference semantics anyway. To deal with the complexity of their
software in the face of the restrictive type system, people use
tricks such as value-objects that contain references
to dynamic implementations, and serve as interfaces to them.
···@itasoftware.com writes:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> > Now for my money I never want to sit thru a link again, nor do I want
> > to work with a language that cannot do the equivalent of (list 1 :two
> > "three), nor could I live without lisp macros, and no matter how much
> > C++ I learn I still won't be able to do those things.
>
> You can't even write a working version of EQ in the language!
You can't? I don't think I can write a *useful* version of eq, but I
think I can write a working one (unless I'm missing some subtlety).
Cheers,
M.
--
> I'm a little confused.
That's because you're Australian! So all the blood flows to
your head, away from the organ most normal guys think with.
-- Mark Hammond & Tim Peters, comp.lang.python
Michael Hudson <···@python.net> writes:
> ···@itasoftware.com writes:
>
> > Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> >
> > > Now for my money I never want to sit thru a link again, nor do I want
> > > to work with a language that cannot do the equivalent of (list 1 :two
> > > "three), nor could I live without lisp macros, and no matter how much
> > > C++ I learn I still won't be able to do those things.
> >
> > You can't even write a working version of EQ in the language!
>
> You can't? I don't think I can write a *useful* version of eq, but I
> think I can write a working one (unless I'm missing some subtlety).
Well, you can write something that compares the bit patterns in a
VOID *, but this breaks down when you start using `envelope/letter'
models (where the exposed interface to the object is a different class
from the implementation of the object). Then you might consider
making *all* your object inherit from a virtual abstract class that
supports an EQ function, but now your objects will be cast to that
abstract type when you want to compare them but the abstract class
doesn't have a way of querying the subclass for equivalence.
I think you can provide an instance identifier that is unique for each
object, but then comparing EQ involves chasing down virtual class
pointers, dereferencing instance counters, etc.
And it won't work on objects that were created by library functions
(unless the library had this hack in it).
···@itasoftware.com writes:
> Michael Hudson <···@python.net> writes:
>
> > ···@itasoftware.com writes:
> >
> > > You can't even write a working version of EQ in the language!
> >
> > You can't? I don't think I can write a *useful* version of eq, but I
> > think I can write a working one (unless I'm missing some subtlety).
>
> [subtleties I'd missed]
Thank you for reminding me why I am doing a PhD and not a C++
programming job :-)
The scars have obviously started to fade from my brain (I didn't think
that was going to happen...)
Cheers,
M.
--
Sufficiently advanced political correctness is indistinguishable
from irony. -- Erik Naggum
Michael Hudson <···@python.net> writes:
> ···@itasoftware.com writes:
>
> > Michael Hudson <···@python.net> writes:
> >
> > > ···@itasoftware.com writes:
> > >
> > > > You can't even write a working version of EQ in the language!
> > >
> > > You can't? I don't think I can write a *useful* version of eq, but I
> > > think I can write a working one (unless I'm missing some subtlety).
> >
> > [subtleties I'd missed]
>
> Thank you for reminding me why I am doing a PhD and not a C++
> programming job :-)
>
> The scars have obviously started to fade from my brain (I didn't think
> that was going to happen...)
Just when you thought it was safe!
My advice to you is to delay your PhD as long as possible because as
soon as you leave academia the scars will re-open.
Ironically, in real-life scars will re-open because of a *deficiency*
in C (the vitamin, that is).
* Thomas F. Burdick -> Espen Vestre
| Got it, so you're saying you're ignorant of a language which is very
| difficult to fully understand, and you're taking other people's word
| on it that it's not that powerful or expressive.
What he actually _said_ was that he took the pattern literature as
evidence of its lack of strength and expressiveness. I happen to agree
that the need for patterns shows a significant weakness in C++.
| Since you seem to be in the business of taking people on their word,
| maybe you should take me on mine and doubt the ability of the doubters
| to fully use C++.
I tend to believe that the patterns people he actually referred to are
not doubters, but people who try to make using C++ easier for people.
| Some of these "highly skilled" C++ people *would* fully understand CL if
| they put the same amount of effort into it, but C++ takes a lot more.
Hence my saying: Life is too long to be good at C++. But is a language
really expressive if it takes a lifetime to become fluent in it? Is not
"expressiveness" a function of the invested effort required to achieve
something?
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
Barry Margolin wrote:
> If C and Java are considered "not powerful", then almost all
> programming languages that have ever been used would be in that group,
Yesssssssss, they would, wouldn't they? :) I do believe that sums up my
feelings about Lisp vis a vis everything else out there.
kenny
clinisys
In article <·················@nyc.rr.com>,
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>Barry Margolin wrote:
>> If C and Java are considered "not powerful", then almost all
>> programming languages that have ever been used would be in that group,
>
>Yesssssssss, they would, wouldn't they? :) I do believe that sums up my
>feelings about Lisp vis a vis everything else out there.
So "a powerful language" and "one of the most powerful languages" mean
pretty much the same thing as far as your concerned? Would you also
consider the cheetah to be the only fast animal? Or do you have less
emotional attachment to animal varieties than programming language?
--
Barry Margolin, ······@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
Sorry, I was actually playfully withdrawing from the discussion. Natural
language cannot bear such close scrutiny. Love them cheetahs, though. :)
kenny
clinisys
Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> In article <·················@nyc.rr.com>,
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Barry Margolin wrote:
> >> If C and Java are considered "not powerful", then almost all
> >> programming languages that have ever been used would be in that group,
> >
> >Yesssssssss, they would, wouldn't they? :) I do believe that sums up my
> >feelings about Lisp vis a vis everything else out there.
>
> So "a powerful language" and "one of the most powerful languages" mean
> pretty much the same thing as far as your concerned? Would you also
> consider the cheetah to be the only fast animal? Or do you have less
> emotional attachment to animal varieties than programming language?
>
> --
> Barry Margolin, ······@genuity.net
> Genuity, Woburn, MA
> *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
> Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> "powerful" cannot mean Turing equivalent, it has to mean expressive
> power. (I just made that up.) Meaning given two languages which are
> t/equiv, if i can express my semantics ten times faster in one then it
> is ten times more powerful (as long as it is also fast, which Lisp is).
>
I think that, while this is a fine theoretical argument, in practice
the technical use of `power' in CS is sufficiently well-known that it
would be better either to qualify it with something (as you do above)
or to use a different term. Doing otherwise is just asking for fools
to wade in with the technical definition.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>
> the technical use of `power' in CS is sufficiently well-known
oh, i see. i'm just a self-taught application programmer, never took
comp sci. read a chapter or two, that's about it.
it is interesting to here that computer scientists have a meaning for
langugae power that is somehow different from "the ability to get a
computer to do what I want".
I am reminded of someone in this thread comparing languages by comparing
the richness of the data types supported. sounds like the viewpoint of a
language implementer. i am a language user, so i just think about how
productive i am with diff languages.
kenny
clinisys
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> >
> > the technical use of `power' in CS is sufficiently well-known
>
> oh, i see. i'm just a self-taught application programmer, never took
> comp sci. read a chapter or two, that's about it.
>
> it is interesting to here that computer scientists have a meaning for
> langugae power that is somehow different from "the ability to get a
> computer to do what I want".
Oh, you can have remarkably impotent languages that you can "get to do
what you want". If, by "do", you mean "compute". Sure, you might
just write yourself an emulation for a more reasonable machine, and
then a Lisp implementation on that, and it might take all the CS profs
and grad students oin existance until 3x the age of the solar system
to complete it, but one can show that it's possible.
CS power is about the power to compute, not expressiveness, which is
of a lot more use to engineers :)
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
* "Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com>
| Has anyone contacted Merriam-Webster yet?
Not me.
| Erik, what version of the encyclopedia is it? North American, European
| version? ISBN?
I am not aware of any different versions, but Amazon has it, too:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877790175
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
Carrying a Swiss Army pocket knife in Oslo, Norway, is a criminal offense.
In article <················@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
> They could think a little bit about what it means for a language to take
> up memory space.
I wouldn't expect an encyclopedia editor to have enough understanding about
computers to realize that the claim makes no sense. They probably don't
know the first thing about how computer languages work.
That entry is an extremely accurate representation of a common
misperception. It's analogous to a pre-Copernican encyclopedia saying that
the Sun revolves around the Earth -- I'm sure they could refer to dozens of
reputable experts they consulted.
I think worrying about this encyclopedia entry is tilting at windmills.
Even if they change it, so what? Do you really think that people doing any
serious comparisons of computer languages are going to use that miniscule
entry as their criteria? Or that changing this encyclopedia will actually
make a dent in the widespread misunderstanding about Lisp in the computer
science industry? I think this is much ado about nothing. (Wow, two
classic literature references in one paragraph! :)
--
Barry Margolin, ······@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
> I think worrying about this encyclopedia entry is tilting at windmills.
> Even if they change it, so what? Do you really think that people doing
any
> serious comparisons of computer languages are going to use that miniscule
> entry as their criteria? Or that changing this encyclopedia will actually
> make a dent in the widespread misunderstanding about Lisp in the computer
> science industry? I think this is much ado about nothing. (Wow, two
> classic literature references in one paragraph! :)
I used to think that the only things really doing were big things. But over
time I have realized that there is nothing wrong with doing "little" things.
I am not _that_ important and this hardly takes any of my time (especicially
if I do not let it).
Wade
* Barry Margolin <······@genuity.net>
| I think worrying about this encyclopedia entry is tilting at windmills.
Then let others who do not agree with you try to change these entries.
| Do you really think that people doing any serious comparisons of computer
| languages are going to use that miniscule entry as their criteria?
What makes you believe that those are the target audience? People who
would like to know about something they previously knew little or nothing
about go to encyclopedia to satisfy their _curiosity_. You are probably
not that kind of person, but I am. Many a journey to learn new things
have begun with various encyclopedia entries over the years. I would
like an entry to be motivating those who seek to learn. This particular
entry is not. Regardless of your defeatism, the fact is that some people
start with absolutely no knowledge about Lisp and could use an entry that
led them to want to learn more, and not be led _astray_. Some people do
in fact start with their own curiosity as the only motivation. If one in
a thosuand start their journey to something I consider valuable through a
dictionary entry, then it is worth improving it. You do not think so,
but I wonder why you find it worth your time and effort to _discourage_
those who do. What is in this for you to want to _hinder_ an improved
entry? Why are you so interested in _de-motivating_ those who would
simply like such an entry to be more accurate? I find your expressed and
strong _negative_ interest here very puzzling, to say the least. How
could it possibly be a good thing for you to cause an inaccurate entry to
remain unchanged if it can be improved?
| Or that changing this encyclopedia will actually make a dent in the
| widespread misunderstanding about Lisp in the computer science industry?
Yes. "A dent" is precisely what I would hope for. If it has wider
effects over time, that would be a good thing, too, but it is hard to
know these things in advance. For instance, it _may_ be sufficient to
change this one entry to cause other entries to be less inaccurate, as
editors and the experts they consult, also consult each other's entries.
| I think this is much ado about nothing.
Of course you do. You have given up and you want others to give up, too.
I would appreciate if you simply gave up and stopped working so hard to
make others give up, too. Giving up is not a good thing to be encouraged.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers. -- Richard Hamming
Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> I think worrying about this encyclopedia entry is tilting at windmills.
> Even if they change it, so what?
I agree. I think the only recourse now is for every good Lisper to use
Lisp to beat the pants off the competition with insanely great
applications. Then just before they shuffle off this mortal coil and
with their dying breath they ask us how we did it, tell them "Lisp".
But! I have to admit I have evidence to support those who have disagreed
with our grim view. I myself was saved from C++ by a lone article (on
macdev) suggesting I look at MCL. And now we're trying to beat the pants
off the competition ... :)
Well, maybe then we should go with Gabriel's suggestion that we pick a
fight with another NG where we can expect to find converts...java?
kenny
clinisys