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 may even go so far as to use it if the uploaded code turns out to be useful to them? If so, then when should agree that we can assume that authors would not be surprised that there may be users who come to depend, possibly even for their livelihood, on those uploaded things.

            We should, then, agree that by virtue of the licence on those published uploads, if not for any other less technical reason, these users have the right to pursue their interests as far as the thing they have downloaded is concerned – and note here that I am not saying this implies any obligation to support this on the author’s end, merely a right on the user’s end.

            Then if we want to get really serious about authors having no obligations, we would have to get really serious about being able to relieve them of obligations where they intersect with users’ own rights: it needs to be trivially easy to fork and fix their crap in place.

            Because either you keep social control of your work and then you accept the social obligations, or you give up social control and avoid the social obligations. It is your right to refuse the obligations. You cannot have one without the other, though. **

            (When I talk about social control, I mean effective control. Eg. 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. This is merely a form of shedding social control ahead of time, because licence permitting it merely means any interested and able party will fork your code as soon as they realise that doing so will save them enough trouble compared to alternative strategies.)

            Now, as an author I can tell you that it would be a far bigger offence to me if someone dangled the fix-it-or-lose-it hammer in front of me than would be the possibility that I may be one of the 10 out of 6,000 authors who receive one an automated mail every once in a very long while.

            And Adam has already said he is even going to seed the notifier with the existing CPAN Testers prefs database.

            ** This, btw, is exactly the point of contention between the GPL and the BSDL.

            • [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 una