Subject: Re: [hackers-il] IP in the Info Age - Summary - Rev. 1

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 05:25:07 +0300 (IDT)

Hi Nadav,

I'm CCing your message to the list, because I think it can be of general
interest to it.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Nadav Har'El wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 05, 2002, Shlomi Fish wrote about "[hackers-il] IP in the Info Age - Summary - Rev. 1":
> >     Practically a routine AFAI'm aware. There are some notable examples
> >     from the computing world, in many of which the prosecuter[*] is trying
> >     to protect a down-right trivial patent or one which has prior art.
> >
> > [*] - Is it the correct term for "Tv'ia" AFA civil law is concerned.
>
> The word is "plaintiff".
>
> plaintiff, noun: a person who brings a legal action -- compare DEFENDANT
>

Thanks for the etymological tip. It will be fixed in the next version of
the Summary.

> >     - One should be thankful for its creator for creating it in the first
> >       place. Whatever, he chooses to allow others to do with it, is a
> >       secondary issue.
>
> Yes, except when talking about software patents, where the idea actually
> is to "patent" as many obvious and straightforward ideas you can think of,
> and actually prevent other people from using the same idea, even if they
> thought of it independently. That is much less honorable than writing
> a code and refusing to let people copy it.
>

I was talking about Copyrights. Patents are a different issue altogether.
Perhaps I should make it a bit more clear that I am referring to
copyrights alone.

> >         - Refer to what Linus Torvalds said that the most important decision
> >         he made with the Linux kernel was the choice of the license.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with him (if indeed he said that). How would the
> situation of Linux now be any different if he chose the BSD license instead?
> Maybe we would have seen a few more commercial kernel patches - but most
> people I know would just ignore these patches, and that's it.
>

I don't know how the situation of Linux would have been different.
However, I do know that in the OSS world at least, things rise and fall
because of their licenses: Qt/KDE, Mozilla changing to a triple license,
Wine, Vim, Python. Part of the reason are the restrictions imposed by the
GPL. (which some people consider as nothing short of God, if you ask me).

But, otherwise, a license has a great effect on the level of the
acceptance of the software. Some software became successful partially
because it was fully GPL compatible. OTOH, some people seems to be phobic
about code that is licensed under the GPL.

Re the Linux kernel itself: I'm sure there were other factors that
contributed to its success besides its license. But I don't indulge myself
in "what if Linux were distributed under the BSD license" contemplations
to try and guess what influence did its license had. Besides, I'm giving
the quote to back up my claim, and do not imply that I agree with it. (at
least not explicitly)

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

There is no IGLU Cabal! They wrote the "Hyper IGLU Cabal Back-End" a
piece of software that superceded anything that came before it and was
considered a revolution in software design. However, they made the mistake
of distributing it under a non-GPL compatible license, which rendered it
useless for most of the O-S world.

>
> --
> Nadav Har'El                        |        Friday, Apr 5 2002, 24 Nisan 5762
> [email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
> Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |We are Microsoft. You will be
> http://nadav.harel.org.il           |assimilated. Resistance is futile.
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        [email-masked]
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail:       [email-masked]

"Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."
"Wait a second - is n a natural number?"

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 13:05:12 +0300

> I'm CCing your message to the list, because I think it can be of general

Shlomi, in this case I didn't mind your posting of my reply to the list, but
please, everybody: if you get an email addressed to you personally (not to
a list) please do not forward it or parts of it to a list without asking
the person for permission first. Making private emails public is considered
bad netiquette.
Even saying "Nadav told me in a private email that ..." is questionable.
This is why I always say "Someone told me that..." when I don't have that
person's permission to post what he told me. You never know what kind of
things the person was trying to keep the list from knowing and you
inadvertently disclosed them.

Anyway, don't worry, no harm done in this case. It's just something to
keep in mind.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |      Saturday, Apr 6 2002, 24 Nisan 5762
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 21:48:08 +0300 (IDT)

bits |= (1<<opinion)

(you triggered my opinion bit for ye C illiterates)

> the person for permission first. Making private emails public is considered

Considered by whom? It reminds me of one of those Australian
anti-cyberspace laws that one of its interpretations suggested that it was
illegal to forward E-mails without expressed permission of the author. I
do agree, that it is not always the best thing to do, and that you should
ask the person first _if you conclude that he may mind_.

As far as I can see, by sending someone E-mail, without the expressed
notice that says "for your eyes only", you give him an implicit permission
to forward it to others. Whether mailing lists and newsgroups fall into
that domain, is open to interpretation. However, the sender and all the
recipients are all entitled to such right. ESR says in one of his fortune
cookies (find it on his site) that an individual is entitled to make life
and death decisions on his own, like making an abortion or carrying a gun.
I think making an otherwise private discussion public is also a right that
falls under a person's judgement, and does not require the two E-mails of
Q: "can I post it to Hackers-IL?" and A: "OK".

Nadav, I did not mean to hurt you feelings by posting the message there,
or to irritate you. I just thought my reply, (which included parts of
yours) could be of interest to the list. Next time, I will ask you before
I post it, but I can't promise I'll do it for every E-mail message I
receive from every correspondent I have. If you also wish to be treated
this way, let me know now in a private E-mail. (which I guarantee that I
will not forward to the list. ;-))

I try to avoid not replying to a mailing-list whenever it is
possible. Some people I know, tend to make non-public posts a bit  too
often, if you ask me, and it's often annoying. The way I see it, if
someone has an opinion about a post, he should post it online to avoid
duplicate posts, and to further the discussion. This is a guideline rather
than a rule, of course.

> inadvertently disclosed them.

I personally don't mind people quoting me or even mis-quoting me. In an
enviornment such as the Internet people are bound to be mis-quoted or
mis-interpreted, and there's nothing unnatural about it. If you don't like
it, maintain a very low Internet activity. How does "When I asked a couple
of guys whether learning Fortran can give me any insights about
programming, they said they can give me insights about how people used to
program." sound? Obviously you'll wonder who these guys are. (it's a true
story, BTW; but having to follow Nadav's Rule, I cannot tell who they
are).

My point is that you should not really be afraid of mis-quoting,
mis-representing or defaming people, just by referring to them in a public
forum. As a general rule, I find it better to tell what's on my mind, than
to try and make sure I don't hurt anybody's feelings. I don't tell
everything's that's on my mind, but I tend to give criticism a lot. While
destructive criticism (flames, FUD, and their ilk) exist, I know myself
well enough to understand that I don't usually induldge in it, externally.

> Anyway, don't worry, no harm done in this case. It's just something to

I will try to be more careful, next time.

<joke>
The Internet is a hazardous place. Who knows, some day someone may send you
a private E-mail and would prohibit you from posting it in public. That day
would come. Sooner than you think. Soon...
</joke>

Seriously now, I understand what you had to say, but I don't fully agree
with it. I'm a little less paranoid when it comes to referring to what
other people say. But I'll try to have more sensitivity for such things.

<joke>
The Die is Cast. The original thread is gone. My hopes of getting feedback
from the Summary in its current incarnation are zero. But who is John
Galt? That is the most important question, which is not really a question
but an expression.
</joke>

I'm in a funny mood today. ;-) Hopefully, my jokes are equally as funny as
my mood.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

Rule of Netiquette #1: You must obey all the other rules.
Rule of Netiqueete #2: Rule #1 is false.

(YA TINIC theme)

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 01:11:17 +0300

Shlomi, I meant what I wrote as a comment, not as a starting point of a
discussion, but if you insist...

> Considered by whom? It reminds me of one of those Australian

I didn't say it was (or should be illegal), just that it is considered bad
etiquette to do so.

"netiquette" (net etiquette) did not emerge out of nowhere - it mostly based
on existing etiquettes of other media like phone calls, snail mails, face-
to-face chats, and things like that.

If I called you up (on the phone) and told you something, even if that was a
completely benign and non-secret thing, would you be comfortable of recording
me and (without asking me) playing that recording to a group of people?
I bet you wouldn't do this, even if (like in this case) what I said was
benign and non-secret. And what about just saying in the group "Nadav just
called me up and said that ..."? That would be a more acceptable, but still
be seen as "gossip", and too much of that would be frowned upon in a
civilized group.

The computer equivalent of these two situations is quoting a private email
verbatim, and rephrasing of what I said, respectively.

Again, I want to stress again that I wasn't offended in any way by your
quoting of this particular message, even though I probably had a reason
(not a strong one, though) for not sending it to the list myself in the
first place. So we're cool, Shlomi, don't worry :)

> ask the person first _if you conclude that he may mind_.

The problem is that unless you have a really high "emotional quotient" (or
whatever they call this crap now ;)), you're not likely to know if the
other person would mind or not.

I once had a botchup like this (but more serious) at work. I wrote a letter
summarizing my opinion on some project to my boss. He was the only person
I addressed this letter to, so I felt safe to write some details that I knew
would upset one of the bigshots in that project. Later I found out that my
boss sent a copy of this letter to this guy, *without* taking out the
upsetting part.
My boss wasn't aware that this part might upset that guy, and I wasn't
aware that I should have written "please don't pass this letter to that
guy..." on the letter, because I explicitly wrote the list of addressees
myself, and "that guy" wasn't on it.

> to forward it to others. Whether mailing lists and newsgroups fall into

I don't agree. Be careful - if you get such a reputation, people might
start being afraid to send you personal email...

> recipients are all entitled to such right. ESR says in one of his fortune

I never said that as a recepient you didn't have this "right" - just that
it usually considered bad etiquette (at least in my opinion - I never read
one of those "official" etiquette manuals...). You may have this "right"
in a court of law, but not in a court of friends (speaking metaphorically).

> duplicate posts, and to further the discussion. This is a guideline rather

Right. Here's another point of etiquette which I've been trying to fight
for several years, thus far without success. Did you ever hear the saying
"ein sodot bechevra"? I remember grownups telling me that when I was sitting
as a kid in a group and tried to tell something to one person without
everyone hearing. It's a very sensible "rule": when you sit in a group of
people and everyone is talking out loud, and suddenly you tell one person
a secret in his ear, it gives out "bad vibes": people might start thinking
that you're telling secrets about them, and why are you hiding stuff from
the rest of the group and don't want to share with them. I also remember
teachers yelling out "Nadav, is there anything you'd like to share with the
whole class?" when I was talking in class ;)

I usually (but as you can see, not in this case ;)) try to follow a similar
"rule" in relatively-small, "familiar", mailing lists too: whenever I
reply to someone's question, I try to do that on the list, not via personal
mail. Remember, the guy asking the question "shouted out" the question to
the whole group, and other people might have become curious too - so it's
"not nice" for the answer to be told to only one person as a secret.

> story, BTW; but having to follow Nadav's Rule, I cannot tell who they

Like I said, I consider loose quoting a much less serious "offence" than
quoting entire paragraphs, and I usually don't mind it at all. When you make
a loose quote, every reader knows you might be remembering wrong, or
misquoting. But when you quote a whole section of an email, you virtually
provide "proof" as to what the other person said.

> from the Summary in its current incarnation are zero. But who is John

Why do you say this is a joke? Is it supposed to be funny?
I'll reply to this seriously: I sent you a few technical comments (like
everyone knows by now :) ), but can't comment on the entire thing because
it is very sketchy (only bullets, no "meat"), and yet very long (are you
expecting the end-result to be a 50 page booklet?).
When you have a more polished draft, I'll be happy to comment then.

> I'm in a funny mood today. ;-) Hopefully, my jokes are equally as funny as

You jokes sounded a little more like sarcasm than actual jokes ;)

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |        Sunday, Apr 7 2002, 25 Nisan 5762
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |You do not need a parachute to skydive.
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |You only need one to skydive twice.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 15:25:14 +0300 (IDT)

Hi!

I'd like to slightly retreat from what I said about posting a message sent
to you by private to a public forum. It is bad netiquette, usually. I'll
try not to do it.

What I disagree about is the "Nadav said" to "Someone said" conversion. I
don't know about you but I exchange pieces of information, opinions,
emotions, etc. Now, if I told you that I contacted Damian Conway and
Larry Wall (which you may know are among the chief leaders of the Perl
community and are hard at work on Perl 6) regarding Rindolf and that:

1. Mr. Conway said that I should go for it and that he was happy that the
Perl world did not take Perl 6 for granted, and actually thought for
themselves.

2. Mr. Wall believed the changes proposed by Rindolf will eventually be
integrated into Perl 5 anyhow, and that I should try to change my
bad opinion on Perl 6.

3. Neither said they have a lot of time to work with me on Rindolf.

This is a true story, of course. Obviously, Conway seems AFAIC to have
understood my motivation behind Rindolf better than Larry. Obviously I
liked his pro-benevolent mutiny idealogy better than Wall who gathered
that Perl 5 would go in the right direction without me doing anything
about it.

Naturally, I defame Larry Wall and glorify Damian Conway a bit here.
But obviously the two have so much to their record, that my opinion about
them in Hackers-IL message #<insert the message number here> would make
little difference for people's opinions about them. Now, how would this
sound if I said "I contacted a couple of big-cheese Perl guys. One of them
said... The other said...".

The same applies to private people who have a relatively smaller niche
than Wall or Conway. If you talked with me in private and then you'd like
to tell Hackers-IL about it, then saying "someone said to me" would sound
ridiculus to me if it were actually me. Likewise, if someone of Hackers-IL
said something to me, without it being a public statement, I think the
list would like to know who it was. Likewise, if he was a "famous" person
which is the case for Conway and Wall.

Nadav, you are bound to hurt somebody's feelings and mis-quote them and
defame them no matter how much caution you are going to take. I now read a
self-help book about Cognitive Psychology, and the author there sais, that
it is impossible to train society at large, or even your own self, not to
hurt other people feelings. People criticize other people without thinking
too much about it, and there's nothing unnatural about it. What can be
done is to make sure you are resistant to such attacks.

Now, I don't consider it bad netiquette to quote someone whom everyone at
a forum are familiar with, with something, as long as you try to be as
accurate as possible in representing him. If he believes he was
mis-quoted, he can testify that that was not what he implied himself. You
really should not be afraid of fear itself.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

Knuth is not God! He defamed Larry Wall in a public E-mail while the
latter keeps glorifying God. Therefore, God decided that he is not the
same entity as Knuth is.