Free Open Source Everything?

[antihec]

Hi monks,

some time ago, I decided to look into "Everything", the core engine - written in perl - of Perlmonks, to maybe submit a patch, or to be able to start some group monk effort to help vroom help us help ourselves. Featurewise. Bugwise. Or something.

Well, I was a bit baffled when I read the License, found here - and decided, no, I don't want to contribute to code "protected" in such a disgusting (IMHO - YMMV) way. (Nontransfereable - come on!) I was expecting something like the Artistic License - guess why. But Ok.

Perlmonks is a nice place, and kept getting nicer. So my attitude towards it was a bit ambivalent, but I thought maybe I was just too picky about that license thing, and after all I'm not that good a coder and haven't that much time to spend, so maybe letting vroom do all the working for us might even be ok with me.

Recently Abigail - a perl ubercoder - joined Perlmonks, and soon after joining, left.

I can't keep myself from asking me: Had the code to perlmonks been free, would Abigail simply have implemented the features she wanted, and just sent the patches in? Would she still be with us? Maybe not. Maybe it was a community thing...

But this question keeps ringing, and the Free Software Issue may haunt perlmonks in some way or another at some time.

I'm just posting this now to be able to say "see, I toldya" when it's too late. (Haha - only serious)

antihec

-- 
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:

[jcwren]

I imagine that I'm not as fanatical as some about whether licenses are open source, GPL, FSF, whatever. Truth be told, I don't pay much attention to it. I use software I need, buy what I have to, hack what I can.

Perhaps as a good netizen and Libertarian, I should be more concerned about the issue. But, in reference to what antihec said, I think there is a fairly close to zero relationship to modifying source and an unhappy Abigail. I consider my self a reasonably competent programmer. I've been doing this stuff for over 20 years, in one area or another. I'm even OK at Perl. Hardly a merlyn or a vroom, but I know how to RTFM, and how to get stuff working. (Ovid helps me with regexps... <G>)

But, for saying that, it doesn't mean I'm qualified or can afford the time or emotional effort to go get the source for Everything, figure out what environments it needs, how to install it, what the model is, make changes to suit my fancy, test it, and have those changes accepted by the powers that be. Fact is, there is more to changing open source software than just grabbing code and hacking.

I'd love to make some meaningful changes to Everything (more aptly, the PM site). Nothing special, just a few things that people have talked about, whatever. But it doesn't mean it's what vroom and company want. It doesn't mean it's what you, the user, wants. And supposing I did make the changes, do vroom and company have time to test and deploy those changes?

There's a substantial difference between making changes/hacks to software you're going to run at home (your own PM site? A kernel mode driver? Some small utility?) than there is to a product that other people are publically using.

Abigail may be a well known Perl coder. I've heard the name before. I know her attitude was, at best, combative. But it doesn't mean that she has the time, skill, or energy to just pick up a fairly large code ball, and make changes that suit her.

I'm all for open source, free software, yada yada yada. But there are some levels of practicality that just aren't there. In my book, this is one of them.

--Chris

e-mail jcwren

[Aighearach]

I think the Great Abigail already disliked PerlMonks. Following is a conversation I had with her a couple weeks ago, in the programming channel on freechess.org. (posted with her permission) She gives some of the reasons for not liking this site. This is the condensed version, some comments omitted for brevity.

Channel 88 "Programming": Abigail Aighearach Dargon FriarTuck(C) Gyro(
+TM) 
\   {kelou} mmorris seva toddmf(TM) vek(*)
10 players are in channel 88.

Aighearach(88): PerlMonks kicks ass. :)
Abigail(88): Really? They don't impress me.
Aighearach(88): Why not?
Aighearach(88): I have found it to be an excellent place to connect wi
+th other 
\   Perl coders. And it's a lot more friendly than #perl, and so the 
\   demographic is more representative of the whole.
Aighearach(88): I mean, perldoc and CPAN are great, but I like to also
+ be able 
\   to discuss efficiency, and some of those More Way[s] To Do It peop
+le are 
\   always talking about.
Aighearach(88): What is it missing, Abigail?
Abigail(88): Too much trivial stuff, and too much wrong stuff.
Aighearach(88): we get people would wouldn't go within 12 
\   miles of #perl
Abigail(88): And that's a feature? ;-)
Aighearach(88): It certainly is. :)
Aighearach(88): Having a broad array of viewpoints is allways preferab
+le.
Aighearach(88): Anyhow, I saw that there was an Abigail acount, I was 
+hoping 
\   it was you, and that you would stay. I've heard you say some reall
+y 
\   right-on things in here, and I think you would really be asset to 
+the 
\   community. Something to consider, anyway.
Abigail(88): If you think I'm not part of the Perl community, then the
+ 
\   conclusion ought to be that you don't know anything about the Perl
+ 
\   community.
Aighearach(88): nonono, I meant the PerlMonks community!
Aighearach(88): Yes, that would be exactly the conclusion if it had be
+en what 
\   I meant, I am sorry that I was unclear.
Abigail(88): I already contribute to clp.misc, various mailinglists, Y
+APC/YAS, 
\   and #perl. Why join yet another medium, one that has the most horr
+ible 
\   interface you can imagine? All those webboards are truely awkward,
+ robbing 
\   you of all the features even bad news and mailreaders give you.
Aighearach(88): Well, the great thing about perl monks is that it is 
\   interactive. If you wrote a non-browser interface, you would get t
+he Love 
\   and Appriciation of all the Perl Monks.
Aighearach(88): so far there are just a slew of clients for the "chatt
+erbox".
Abigail(88): That non-browser interface has existed for 20 years. It's
+ called 
\   Usenet.
Aighearach(88): hahahaha
Aighearach(88): I will assume that was a joke, since you were just tal
+king 
\   about "features."
Abigail(88): news readers give me features a webboard doesn't give. An
+ 
\   extremely important feature: *not* showing me articles I've alread
+y read.
Aighearach(88): ah HA! Yes, that is a very important feature indeed!
Abigail(88): Another vital one: killfiles.
Aighearach(88): What if there was a usenet gateway for it? Would that 
+make you 
\   more receptive to participation?
Aighearach(88): May I have permission to share you comments on the Per
+lMonks 
\   site?
Aighearach(88): s/you/your/
Abigail(88): Perhaps. It certainly won't move me away from it. But the
+n, I 
\   already spend a few hours a day on clp.misc, #perl and the mailing
+lists.
Abigail(88): I've viewed my opinions on the interface on slashdot and 
\   use.perl.org (which is yet another slashdot copy-cat). People don'
+t agree, 
\   quoting spam on usenet, while not being bothered by a animated ad 
+on every 
\   web page.
Aighearach(88): Yeah, I use a proxy to filter the ads. :)
Abigail(88): Urg! Perlmonks require me to scroll horizontally!
Aighearach(88): Use lynx. ;)
Aighearach(88): There is setting for forced code wrapping width, but i
+t hasn't 
\   been extended to all the width problems yet. vroom is adding a lot
+ of 
\   features and fixes, so it has been improving.
Abigail(88): Ah, the frontpage has an article that gives another reaso
+n not to 
\   like Perlmonks. It indicates it's ok to ask FAQs and to not have r
+ead the 
\   manual.
Aighearach(88): No.
Aighearach(88): That is an ongoing discussion.
Aighearach(88): That main consensus is that the correct response is to
+ point 
\   to the documentation in question, rather than flaming the person.
Aighearach(88): Guidance, as opposed to stone throwing.
Aighearach(88): Not everybody is going to be at the same capability, a
+nd 
\   programming shouldn't be only for the elitists.
Abigail(88): Saying RTFM *is* someone pointing to the documentation. ;
+-)
Aighearach(88): hahaha, RTFM [link] does it.
Abigail(88): And besides, reading the manual isn't for elitists. Readi
+ng the 
\   manual is common sense. Whether it is for operating a VCR, driving
+ a car, 
\   or programming a language.
Aighearach(88): But some people don't even know where the manual IS...
+ instead 
\   of kicking them in the shins, and leaving them as lame and clueles
+s as 
\   when they walked in, we try to at least help them get in there.
Aighearach(88): Common sense isn't common, though.
Dargon(88): I enjoy reading manuals when I become extremely bored.
Aighearach(88): Dargon, there is hope for you yet. ;)
Dargon(88): *Grin*
Abigail(88): Just like that the manual comes with your VCR or your car
+.
Aighearach(88): I know, but some people don't know it's there! Some pe
+ople are 
\   used to M$ Visual Studio, and crap like that...
Aighearach(88): If a forum can a person from the bottom, up to the top
+, 
\   without running off anybody not born with asbestos skin, then it o
+f course 
\   is going to be the idea resource.
Abigail(88): *shrug* Still, even if you bother to listen/read in the n
+ewsgroup 
\   or #perl (and hopefully perlmonks) before asking trivial questions
+, you 
\   will be aware there's an excellent manual.
Aighearach(88): Yes, but not everybody is the best case.
Aighearach(88): As in any field, there is a place for people of all 
\   skill/intelligence levels. Isn't there?
Abigail(88): You are suggesting Perlmonks is aiming at the low end of 
+the 
\   scale? ;-)
Aighearach(88): hehe, no, I am saying it is aiming to be inclusive. It
+ is 
\   aiming to be able to help both the fresh baby coder who doesn't ev
+en know 
\   what RTFM means, and also to help the seasoned coder, who is seeki
+ng an 
\   insight into how x aspect of y module should be used in z context.
Dargon(88): Human Intelligence is over rated.
Aighearach(88): or at least over stated...
Abigail(88): So be it, but all this combined is enough reason for me t
+o hardly 
\   get involved into Perlmonks. I glance over the frontpage every few
+ days, 
\   but I read every article on clp.misc (unless my killfile got it) a
+nd spend 
\   a lot of time on #IRC.
Abigail(88): s/#IRC/#perl/
Aighearach(88): So if there was any one thing that would make you more
+ likely 
\   to use PerlMonks in one form or another, what would it be?
Abigail(88): 1) Better interface. 2) More interesting articles. FAQs a
+nd 
\   trivial things that can be found straight in the manual are just a
+ big 
\   waste of time (not only from the question itself, but also from al
+l the 
\   wrong answers given by people who haven't read the manual either).
Aighearach(88): Thanks. :) BTW, there are lots of interesting articles
+... 
\   maybe a system where the higher level users could mark an article 
+based on 
\   the exerience level of the topic might help.

Paris Sinclair    |    4a75737420416e6f74686572
[e-mail]    |    205065726c204861636b6572
http://sinclairinternetwork.com

[Ovid]

As far as I can tell, Abigail doesn't like Perlmonks for two reasons:
1. She doesn't care to wade through the masses to get to what she values.
2. The unfinished interface is not to her liking.
Okay, I'll grant her first point. Personally, I find that a dissapointment as I am clearly a mid-level Perl coder and I suspect that any site that's good enough for me is scraping the bottom of the barrel for her. I lose out on her wisdom, but that is my choice for hanging out here and her choice for not doing so. That's fair enough.

The second point is ridiculous. Claiming something is flawed but pointedly ignoring the fact that it's beta is ridiculous (yes, I know that she's aware that it's beta. I'm commenting on her not making any allowance for this fact.)

[Aighearach]

She has great knowledge, but she guards it closely.

"Oh, but all data WILL be processed" -- Abigail

Maybe if we leave an offering under the tree in the moonlight, she will come back.

Paris Sinclair    |    4a75737420416e6f74686572
[e-mail]    |    205065726c204861636b6572
http://sinclairinternetwork.com

[buzzcutbuddha]

Wow. I don't know Abigail, but I trust that she is an incredibly competent programmer, and worth listening to on some issues, but I agree she is very combatent, and I'm frankly disappointed by her tone. Of course we're going to have wrong information. I see that too on the Usenet. Of course, you're going to have newbie questions, I see that on Usenet.

But PerlMonks has so much more community than any of the Usenet places. That's where I first went when I was learning Perl. I haven't gone back. I mean, if you are an expert, and you want immediate expert answers, maybe you shouldn't come here.

Call Larry or Email Jarkko or something like that.

[Nitsuj]

She does soft of have a point. I realize that this is a PERL site, but does that mean that everything has to be server-side CGI so it can be written in PERL? Chatting on IRC is much more elegant than echoing over CGI. Still I like the site and the folks, it's a bit more removed than many communities. I do hate incorrect posts, but when there are enough people with voting rights, this will be easy enough to solve (though it could cause bad blood, ala /.)

"We're all different!"
"I'm not"
-The Life of Brian

[Ozymandias]

I don't think the incorrect posts are really a problem; there are always more correct posts than incorrect, and people willing to (POLITELY) correct the mistakes. I like the community here, too; time and again, newbies comment about this being the nicest, most helpful Perl community on the web, and I for one hope it stays that way.
- email Ozymandias

[Anonymous Monk]

Why don't you remove your lips from Abigails ass and code some Perl?

[Aighearach]

HAR HAR HAR

So this is what AM is for... it all makes sense now. Welcome to /., please enjoy your stay.

I was way, offbase when I was telling Abigail about this being a friendlier, more inclusive community.

Hopefully they are previewing AM's IP, and weeding the Trolls.

Or maybe they are just hoping for divine intervention...

But given that we can't even hold onto people like Abigail, if it's not a friendly site then that calls for a re-evaluation of Abigail's arguments.

Paris Sinclair    |    4a75737420416e6f74686572
[e-mail]    |    205065726c204861636b6572
http://sinclairinternetwork.com

[vroom]

We shall see what happens in the future now that mySQL is GPL there's a chance we could package the whole thing up and GPL it. Will we do that? Maybe... maybe not... right now we're working on developing a sufficiently stable code base and adding new features and functionality that would make Zope self-destruct out of a feeling of inadequacy (if we're luckily Python will get caught in the shrapnel). We also need to figure out how to pay our bills too something people forget about sometimes.

vroom | Tim Vroom | [e-mail]

[chromatic]

I don't really understand your objection (if that's not too strong a word).

You were interested in modifying Everything to add features to Perl Monks. You object (again, apologies if I'm misrepresenting you) to the idea that the Everything team wants you to send any substantial modification patches to them.

vroom is a *member* of that team. If you send him a patch for Perl Monks, it'll get to nate and dbrown as well. (In fact, I copied all three of them on a proposed patch a few weeks ago, and vroom came up with a better solution.)

Now if you're uncomfortable with the idea that patches and modifications in general (not specific to Perl Monks) need to go to the Everything team, that's a different story. I suggest we all wait and see what the 1.0 licence says, especially as comparisons to the MySQL licence are now a little different.

As for Abigail, I doubt she would have contributed patches. She's too busy with other things.

[turnstep]

Good point. I'd never looked at it before, but this sentence rubbed me the wrong way:

In addition, you are permitted to edit the source code, provided that a copy of all substantial modifications are subsequently sent via electronic medium to Everything Development

So who defines "substantial?" And why should I have to send in any of my modifications to source code that I have downloaded?

To be fair, the page at http://everydevel.com/index.pl?node=Everything%20Core&lastnode_id=205 does state that:

The current release is distributed under the Everything Pre-Release License. It is fairly strict as it does not allow for redistribution or commercial use. Our intention is to mellow the license agreement out for the one-point-oh release.

Yes, mellowing would be good. Perhaps even something GPLish?

[spectre]

Your logic regarding Abigail is flawed - Where in the license does it say that you cant submit patches? In fact, it specifically states that you have to submit changes to the code to the Everything dev team - I dont see how the license has anything to do with an inability to write and submit patches.

If I had a piece of code that I open sourced, and it wasn't finished yet, you'd better believe I wouldnt want people redistributing changes they had made - but I WOULD want them submitting fixes to me (As the license suggests you should).
Regards,
spectre

[antihec]

The logic you talk about indeed is flawed; What I was thinking is: "If it keeps me from contributing, maybe it keeps others from contributing, too"... Not that I'm such a valuable source of Perl Wisdom, but there are others, where them being dispelled by what looks like sloppiness in licensing, would just be too sad.

I see, that was not the case with Abigail, I was wrong there, as Aighearach proved. But I nevertheless think licensing may be more important than the Everything Development team considers it to be right now, and /might/ be worth a boost in priority; It could even turn out to be a relatively easy way to gain development speed.

And for your second point, as well as for my "objection, as chromatic calls it: I've no problem with everything development and vroom beeing the maintainers of the code. But even it were alpha - which it doesn't seem like, we're using it like production code, here - there's no reason for a license like that (except liking coding better than Licensing Issues, which all of us do, I believe).

There are examples for free alpha code maintained by one person. Development isn't slowed down but speeded up by a good free license - IMNSHO. And that's why I care.

antihec

-- 
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:

[spectre]

Explain to me please HOW you are prevented from contributing?
The license says, very plainly, if you make a big change, send it to the team. This language seems to ENCOURAGE changes, not prevent them. The idea that because you cant freely redistribute your changes you are prevented from changing it is ridiculous, I dont see anywhere in the license where you are prohibited from changing things. The very idea that you think you are suggests you didnt read clearly - again, it says plainly that if you make a big change just submit it back to the dev team. I still dont understand HOW that prohibits ANYONE from changing the code. If a license has a clause specifically regarding changing code and submitting said changes, that license infers you are allowed, even encouraged to change it!
Regards,
spectre

[Ozymandias]

I guess it had to happen eventually... the License Nazis are here. There goes the neighborhood.

I'm just posting this because I get so tired of people ranting about freedom who clearly have no understanding of what freedom means.

- email Ozymandias

[antihec]

just go and patch Everything to include an ignore list. Might save us all some time.

-- 
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:

[Ozymandias]

I've got a better idea; let the programmers and developers pick whatever license they like for their code. You don't own the code to Everything; the EDC does. You don't control the code, you are nothing but a USER of the code. If you don't like the conditions placed on you by the license they've chosen, then DON'T USE IT. Grow up and learn that the real world isn't run by your whim.
- email Ozymandias