Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
 
PerlMonks  

Re: O'Reilly some sort of perl monopoly?

by chromatic (Archbishop)
on Mar 03, 2006 at 06:49 UTC ( #534151=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to O'reilly some sort of perl monopoly?

You didn't do any research, did you?

If you had done a modicum of research, you might have found that an O'Reilly employee submitted a patch to p5p last year changing the core documentation as well as the text that appears when you type perl -v to point to perl.org as the Perl home page, not Perl.com.

You might have noticed that the same employee (and another employee) convinced the rest of the company to donate the text of the glossary of the third edition Camel to the core documentation -- under the same license as the rest of the documentation.

You might have noticed that the company also sponsors, in part, the time of the same two employees to work on Perl 6 for part of every week.

You might have noticed that the company has hosted a CPAN mirror for years, is exceedingly generous into letting useful contributors into the rather expensive conferences for free, contributes often to the Perl Foundation, and publishes as much information as financially possible on Perl.com for free to anyone -- even you.

You might have noticed that "a million books every few months" has, in common with the actual truth, only the word "book".

Now maybe in your ideal world people would do the same amount of work at the same level of quality for free. (Maybe in your world bandwidth is free.) Would I (hey, one of the employees mentioned earlier, strangely enough...) still write and publish about Perl if I weren't an O'Reilly employee? Absolutely.

I wouldn't be able to write or code or publish as often, though.

You certainly don't have to be grateful for the meager scraps a big (ha) bad (ha ha) publishing monopoly (ha ha ha stop, you're hurting me!) throws your way, but given the amount of research and careful thought your post here demonstrates, I'm surprised you didn't spell "Perl" with a Q or something.

PS - publishing celebrity news would be more financially rewarding than technology books. Trust me.


Comment on Re: O'Reilly some sort of perl monopoly?
Download Code
Re^2: O'Reilly some sort of perl monopoly?
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 03, 2006 at 08:48 UTC

    It is good that you admit you are an O'Reilly employee, but that still makes your words susspect.

    But you have inadvertently proved me correct without knowing. You admit that O'Reilly has added its own copyrighted material to the perl core. As everyone knows, the GPL is viral, so this means that O'Reilly has control of perl. This makes me sad, because I love perl, but I will now not use it any longer and demand that my local library remove all scripts written in perl from its web page, because it is now being controlled by a corporation.

    Please, people, consider this, do you want to go on working for a corporation without getting paid? We should all move to PHP, it is a better language anyway and it is true Open Source. Everyone who loves freedom must agree with me.

      What makes you think that, license wise, PHP is any better than Perl? Besides, PHP is property of Zend.
      I will [...] demand that my local library remove all scripts written in perl from its web page, because it is now being controlled by a corporation.
      While you're at it, make them remove all of MS-Windows as well.

      You are spreading FUD!!!!!

      As soon as O'Reilly GPL'ed that stuff it doesn't mean that O'Reilly has control of Perl, it means that the Perl community has control of material that O'Reilly paid to write. And O'Reilly as a corportation CANT add anything to the perl core. That is done by Larry Wall and the Pumpkings. And you know what, if you dont like it, go ahead fork perl. Theres nothing anybody can do to stop you. The only thing is you won't be able to call it 'perl'.

      You are so totally fully of shit that it is not funny. And if you do what you say you are going to do it will be the loss of your local library, and noone else. You claim to be an open source advocate but you are repeating lies and misinformation about how open source works. Its just ridiculous.

      And your last sentence just shows your true colors. You dont care about perl at all. You are some kind of PHP troll trying to use misleading arguments and FUD and outright lies to achieve some kind of misguided anti-perl crusade. Well thats fine but take it up elsewhere.

      ---
      $world=~s/war/peace/g

      Funny, I'm a Perl commiter and when I add something to Perl, I currently assign the copywrite over to Larry Wall, not O'Reilly. Better yet, here's the copyright and licence on perlglossary.pod.

      Based on the Glossary of Programming Perl, Third Edition, by Larry Wall, Tom Christiansen & Jon Orwant. Copyright (c) 2000, 1996, 1991 O'Reilly Media, Inc. This document may be distributed under the same terms as Perl itself.

      Control of the glossary passed over to the Perl community, not vice versa. Patches welcome!

      So either you need a tinfoil hat, or this thread is a good example of troll bait. Your arguments about O'Reilly controlling Perl are so idiotic that I won't try to continue to argue it.

      I will argue about PHP, though. PHP is under the control of a corporation. Zend employs many of the core developers of PHP. It is also suspected that Zend is in talks to be acquired by Oracle. So, please enjoy your freedom. Bye bye!

      'viral' is a term usually used by opensource detrators because of it's negative connotations.

      If O'Reilly has given it's own copyrighted material to perl, under the same terms as perl, then that means they have given away certain rights to that material, it doesn't mean that they have gained any rights to perl at all.

      Perl is distributed under both the GPL and the perl Artistic license. Anybody using perl can choose which license they wish to use, so it doesn't even need to be to GPL. And if they don't actually distribute perl, they don't even need to state which license they are using perl under.

      The only 'control' of perl that O'Reilly has is that if the perl license changes in future, the file contributed by O'Reilly would have to be removed if they didn't agree to the new license. That's it.

      You admit that O'Reilly has added its own copyrighted material to the perl core. As everyone knows, the GPL is viral, so this means that O'Reilly has control of perl.

      Please go back to AboveTopSecret or something.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

      you spelled "suspect" wrong.

      and your phrase "But you have inadvertently proved me correct without knowing" is redundant contains redundancy. thanks McDarren :-)

      meh.

      Well, this proves once and for all that you're unrepentantly evil, unremittingly stupid, or unimaginably ignorant. Regardless of which, there's no point talking to you.

      print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);
      - apotheon
      CopyWrite Chad Perrin

      I think this whole thing is hilarious. C'mon, the OP/AM can't be serious, it's just too laughable.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://534151]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-09-02 11:00 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite cookbook is:










    Results (21 votes), past polls