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 instead everyone had to consent to every specific treatment, then that would make questions of ethics very simple as they would not come up in the first place; it would also make the world a lot simpler, as nothing would ever get done.

                    This is especially true if the question is how to ask consent of someone who never consented to be asked for consent, and who did not consent to things that they couldn’t know about because they weren’t yet invented or even conceived. At that point you don’t need Kant, you need a time machine.

                    permitting anyone with a good idea to write a robot to send me email I never consented to

                    It’s hard to even call this robot-generated mail when the scale of the entire system is so limited that Adam could do the whole process by hand in two minutes per day. It’s certainly not bulk mail by any reasonable definition of bulk. And the rate of invention of such systems is infinitesimally low, so that angle won’t support a Categorical Imperative argument against it either. I contend that any credible Categorical Imperative case against this proposal would inherently be even more valid as a case against the human-operated use of email by me.

                    • 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 una