Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Especially if we're talking about only a few. Emailing 100 people that their distros are immensely used and still fail quite a lot sounds reasonable, but I think it's more than fair to email 10 people.

    FAIL 100 can really help us focus efforts on bug resolution. Imagine a group in the community (composed of the community) that helps weave out bugs in CPAN/DarkPAN/whatever. Now, if they could only know which distros need the most hand... oh wait! Now they do!

    At any case, how hard can it be to email back and s

    • At any case, how hard can it be to email back....

      You don't get to decide that for other people receiving automated bulk mail.

      • True. I don't get to decide it, but I can reply to Adam's request for anyone's opinion, and per my opinion, I think that receiving one little measly email that you can just press the "Reply" button and say "no more for me" isn't the worst thing.

        I thought we're talking about some heavy-weight programmers (in a matter of skill, not body weight) that can write extremely useful modules. I would like to think that they can read an email and that they probably have some program that has a "reply" function or can

        • There is no general purpose agreement that by uploading something to PAUSE you grant permission for anyone with spare time and the desire to analyze what you uploaded has the right to send you automated e-mail as he or she sees fit.

          That fails the categorical imperative test. You may not be a Kantian (I'm not), but it's still a useful gauge for behavior.

          • There is no general purpose agreement that by uploading something to PAUSE you grant permission for anyone with spare time and the desire to analyze what you uploaded has the right to send you automated e-mail as he or she sees fit.

            Can we agree that uploading to CPAN is an act of publishing, ie. that it means that the author expects other people to take notice of the existence of the code, at a bare minimum? Can we further agree that reasonable people who upload code to CPAN will expect that other people m

            • [You] could upload your code with a disclaimer saying that no one should use it and you should not expected to conform to the common implications of the act of uploading code to the CPAN.

              There are two problems with this reasoning.

              First, I've chosen a license which already disclaims any express or implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. (The Artistic License in /usr/share/apps/LICENSES/ARTISTIC misspells "merchantability".)

              Second, we're discussing a so-called "common im

              • We’re discussing a so-called “common implication” that came into existence only recently.

                That is news to me. You mean until only recently, the CPAN was regarded as a place were you upload backup copies of your code for your personal use?

                I think the idea of the CPAN from the very beginning was that it was a place where you could publish code for others if you felt like it. And I dare say it would be a sensible assumption to make that every author is perfectly well aware of and shares this

                • You mean until only recently, the CPAN was regarded as a place were you upload backup copies of your code for your personal use?

                  The context of this discussion is automated bulk emails regarding a specific external analysis of CPAN uploads which did not exist in 2000 when I uploaded my first distribution to the PAUSE. How do you generalize from the fact that in no way could I have agreed to a very specific case of receiving automated bulk email from a tool that would not exist for eight years that I objec

                  • Just don’t tell me that I agreed to them implicitly in 2000

                    You never put a “please don’t use this” sign on your code (which is not the same as an “I’m not making any promises about what the code does” sign AKA the licence). By the act of uploading itself, you implicitly declared that your intent was in fact the opposite of such a sign. If it were forbidden to attempt a reasonable non-literal interpretation of the extent of what such an intent might allow for, and i

                    • You never put a “please don’t use this” sign on your code...

                      Why do you persist in attempting to equate allowing the use of code I've uploaded under a DFSG-compatible license with implicit permission to send me unsolicited, automated email?

                      One important difference is that your use of code I have written consumes no resources on systems under my control. Unsolicted, automated email consumes resources on my mail server. This is not the only difference, but it is a stark difference.

                      By the

                    • I take that (implied subjunctive) litotes as agreement that it is robot-generated mail.

                      I was going to propose a thought experiment here, but as per below I’m not going to bother.

                      Why do you persist in attempting to equate allowing the use of code I’ve uploaded under a DFSG-compatible license with implicit permission to send me unsolicited, automated email?

                      I’m not. The situation has far more qualifying circumstances than your narrow (in my view) portrayal would suggest, and either I am unable to convey this or you are unwilling to entertain the consequences of those compounding factors. Since my position depends on those, we are not going to converge, no matter how long we go in circles.

                      We disagree, and I have nothing further beyond that to say.