close@lunch.wpd.sgi.com (Diane Barlow Close) (07/03/90)
Mark Harrison (harrison@necssd.NEC.COM) wrote: > If someone who does speak for the FSF can clarify their position, I > would appreciate it. And Paul Eggert (eggert@burns.twinsun.com) wrote: > Could you please clarify this in a later posting, or if you prefer, > private email? I'm interested in both your and the FSF's positions... Okay, I asked and here's the official word (from Richard Stallman and Bob Chassell of the FSF) on where the FSF stands on quoting non-free materials. First rms, then Bob Chassell, then my thoughts: *********************************************** > From rms@ai.mit.edu Sun Jun 24 12:57:54 1990 Pass this on if you want. I am the person who commented out the references to the non-free reference manuals that had originally been put in the GAWK manual. We thanked Kernighan in the GAWK manual because we are grateful for his help with GAWK. We did not recommend that people buy the books he worked on because they cannot be part of the documentation of the GNU system. No matter how well they were written, they are not available, because the authors chose to make it illegal for GNU users to copy them. I don't see any contradiction between being grateful to a person for one helpful action and not being grateful for another action which is not helpful. It is possible for a person to do some things right and other things wrong. I think it is a good thing to be able to judge these actions separately instead of lumping them together. Why is it OK for GNU DIFF's README to cite a ``non-free'' journal, but not OK for the gawk manual to cite a ``non-free'' book? One reason is that the former citation is not for purposes of documenting the system for users. Our documentation must stand on its own. If it isn't sufficient, then we must improve it, not refer people to something that we cannot distribute along with copies of GNU. Doesn't it hamper the free flow of information to refuse to cite work that is freely available in any good technical library? The word "hamper" is not appropriate if we merely decide not to publish certain information. It is normal and inevitable for authors to decide what they wish to say and what they wish to leave out. Unless the author has a near monopoly on what people read, this is not something that affects the free flow of information in general. It is true that our decision will not give certain people some information they would like. However, the goal of the FSF is to change society so that more information will be free in the long run. Being maximally obliging to everyone's immediate wishes is not a concommitant of this goal. For the long run, we must encourage free documentation, not non-free documentation. Should giving proper credit to other people's technical contributions depend on agreeing with their politics? I think this question is a red herring. As far as I know, the the GAWK manual gives credit to everyone who contributed significantly to GAWK, regardless of their political beliefs (which I generally did not ask) and of their other actions. In particular, it gives credit to Brian Kernighan. However, if you know of anyone specific who deserves credit for contributing to GAWK but is not acknowledged in the GAWK manual, please tell me. **************************************************** >From labrea!grackle!bob@ai.mit.edu Wed Jun 27 09:52:26 1990 > @comment We don't refer people to non-free information > @c We don't refer to hoarded information. Here is a case where I agree with RMS: We did not recommend that people buy the books he worked on because they cannot be part of the documentation of the GNU system. No matter how well they were written, they are not available, because the authors chose to make it illegal for GNU users to copy them. Perhaps this fuller explanation should be included in the source. J. Greely writes: > harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison) writes: >>I personally feel very bad on the Kernighan's behalf. After putting >>so much work into his books (every one, IMO, a classic) and setting >>a new standard for excellence in programming books, and then graciously >>helping the gawk authors to copy his work, and then being called an >>INFORMATION HOARDER!!!! But his books are hoarded. I have looked at their copyright pages in the bookstore. Truth may be unpleasant, but it is truth. Also, someone said Doesn't it hamper the free flow of information to refuse to cite work that is freely available in any good technical library? I myself have never had good access to a good technical library except for a short period in my youth. (For practical reasons, I do not have ready access to MIT libraries even now.) Most people who will use GNU will not have access to a good technical library. To presume otherwise is to discriminate against the majority. RMS says: the goal of the FSF is to change society so that more information will be free in the long run. Being maximally obliging to everyone's immediate wishes is not a concommitant of this goal. For the long run, we must encourage free documentation, not non-free documentation. I agree. ********************************************* And now me. Here's my thoughts on the matter, a bit different from the official ``company'' view: Paul Placeway (pplaceway@bbn.com) wrote: > The entire essance of scholarly publication is an attempt to distribute > information that can be used freely. The fact that the physical > manifestation (book, journal, etc.) may not be free is easily solved > by going to a library. The physical AWK book isn't free, but then > neither is the screen that you are reading my words off of, nor the > paper you put into your printer. Neither, for that matter, is a GNU > source tape (yes, you can FTP GNU stuff for free, but your network > connection isn't free either). That's an argument to run by rms. Why not write him and ask him? (His address is rms@ai.mit.edu). > On the other hand, if information in a work was used in another piece > of work (including the implimentation of a program), the author has an > obligation to cite all sources used. To do otherwise is somewhere > between sloppy and plagurism. If the cited work was NOT used to help write the GAWK manual, and the author in question simply felt that knowledge of such work would be useful to the GAWK reader, then the citation should be placed in a ``Further Reading'' section and not in the body of the main manual. The FSF has no obligation to provide a section on further reading, nor any obligation to include non-free sources in this section. A section like that is up to the FSF folks to include. However, if the cited piece was used to help write the GAWK manual, then it *should* be cited (whether it is free or not) in a bibliography-type section. Of course, rms will argue that non-free sources should NOT be used to assist in writing any FSF manuals (an argument I've already had with him). After all, the FSF is re-engineering sources from *scratch* and shouldn't be looking at the original sources at all. Therefore, there is no need to look at non-free sources...(and 'round in circles we go :-) As Ozan Yigit (oz@yunexus.yorku.ca) so elequently put it: > This issue, however, is only peripheral to the issue of giving *proper > credit* where one is due, whether that be books, personal communication, > source code, whatever. So the question really is *whether or not the awk > book is used as a reference* during the development of GAWK, rather than > *the status of information* contained therein. If it *was* used, than the > least I expect is a proper reference: it is my opinion that the quality > of a tool, or its public usefullness does not absolve the authors from the > responsibility towards other works that made the tool possible. Now I didn't write the cited passage, so I can't tell you whether or not the AWK book was used to help write the GAWK manual or not. Arnold Robbins has already said how he feels about this, and I think I'll let him have the last word: :-) > As I said above, I wasn't out to spread useless and irrelevant personal > opinion. Had the gawk manual been something being published as a regular > book, it would have been appropriate to cite the other references. > > That the commentary got left in is something of an oversight, but there > are other things in the manual that are commented out because more work > needs to be done on them or they are vestigial. A manual is like a program > in that it evolves over time. How many of you have programs with NO code > commented out? Right, I thought so. :-) -- Diane Barlow Close close@lunch.wpd.sgi.com also close@cygnus.com I'm at lunch today. :-)
diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa) (07/03/90)
I don't understand something. If authors don't eat, then how can they write? And if they don't have a roof over their heads, then how can you read the paper they've written on? I understand that software writers aren't supposed to eat except by being paid for debugging what they've written for free. But one doesn't have such expectations of authors. If a book is not debugged before publication, people complain. And the marketplace for books is different from the one for software. Publishers make big investments in providing food and rent to book authors, as well as bringing the books to where potential customers can see them (and a few of these customers don't even have computers). Does RMS think that publishers should have gone bankrupt centuries ago? -- Norman Diamond, Nihon DEC diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com This is me speaking. If you want to hear the company speak, you need DECtalk.
eggert@dew.twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) (07/03/90)
I don't mind if the GAWK manual's authors decided to not cite the AWK book for editorial reasons like ``The AWK book is redundant,'' or even ``We don't want footnotes or references, because they turn users off.'' There is precedent for lack of citations in language reference manuals; see [1], for example. But to refuse to cite a book purely for political reasons smacks of censorship, and in the long run a reputation for censorship will hurt the FSF far more than a few impure references to non-free works. The FSF should be sensitive to the traditions of scholarly publication, because they are natural and powerful allies of the FSF's goals. ----- [1] Adele Goldberg and David Robson, Smalltalk-80: the language and its implementation. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley (1983).
matt@group-w.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) (07/04/90)
Paul Eggert: ) But to refuse to cite a book purely for political reasons smacks of censorship, This is nothing but knee-jerk bullshit, Paul, and you should be ashamed of such sloppy logic-free thinking. To refuse to say certain things is not censorship. Failing to give free use of one's own soapbox to opponents is not censorship. Censorship consists of preventing certain things from being said by others. (Can you believe that some people go so far as to claim that refusing to *read* certain things is censorship? People that stupid ought to have their usenet privileges revoked! :-) ________________________________________________________ Matt Crawford matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (07/04/90)
close@lunch.wpd.sgi.com (Diane Barlow Close) provides some insight from other FSF folks... > > From rms@ai.mit.edu Sun Jun 24 12:57:54 1990 ... > We thanked Kernighan in the GAWK manual because we are grateful for > his help with GAWK. We did not recommend that people buy the books he > worked on because they cannot be part of the documentation of the GNU > system. No matter how well they were written, they are not available, > because the authors chose to make it illegal for GNU users to copy > them... The phrase "they are not available" is unfortunate. What it really means is that they are not something FSF can have for its own, nor are they available on the terms FSF wants...but both of those are rather far from the unqualified "not available." In fact, Kernighan's AWK book is both readily available and (although I understand that this doesn't matter within the FSF belief system) reasonably priced. and from labrea!grackle!bob@ai.mit.edu: > But his books are hoarded. I have looked at their copyright pages > in the bookstore. Truth may be unpleasant, but it is truth. This is an even-more-unfortunate statement. Opinion is not truth. For one thing, "hoard" and "publish" are quite nearly opposites. For another, the word "hoard" carries an obvious, strong negative connotation. It is not a word a reasonable person uses for a factual statement of an opponent's position. It is clearly intended to cast aspersion. As I sit on the sidelines, I'm not sure whether the FSF's position is changing, or merely becoming more clear, but I think the timing of it all is quite unfortunate. With the just-announced disastrous (IMO) decision for Lotus, it is important to have some strongly-worded statements from "the other side"--yet I think many of us are just now finding that FSF cannot speak for us because its position has become untenably radical and/or violates our standards of professional conduct. For me, there's a fatal loss of focus in moving from challenging ridiculous software costs and licensing to challenging the entire publishing industry. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
pplaceway@bbn.com (Paul Placeway) (07/06/90)
Perhaps I wasn't entirly clear. Oz said this quite well, but I'll try to clearify my opinion a bit more: If a piece of information was used either in the implimentation of a program, or the documentation of that program, then said piece of information should be given due credit, regardless of it's availiablity status. Since the GAWK Manual is the primary documention on the GAWK program, that is where I would expect to see the credit placed. Perhaps the credit should be split into two sections (one for the program, one for the documentation) or perhaps not. So, if _The_AWK_Programming_Language_ was used in the *implimentation* of the GAWK Program, then it should show up in the bibliography of the GAWK Manual. Perhaps this whole mess could be solved by having two seperate bib sections: one for GNU and otherwise free information, the other for Non-free information (books, journals, etc.). Then both the information trail and the status of each part would be clear. -- Paul Placeway <pplaceway@bbn.com>
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (07/18/90)
In article <1990Jul3.111026.19698@twinsun.com> eggert@dew.twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) writes: > > But to refuse to cite a book purely for political reasons smacks of > censorship, and in the long run a reputation for censorship will hurt > the FSF far more than a few impure references to non-free works. The > FSF should be sensitive to the traditions of scholarly publication, > because they are natural and powerful allies of the FSF's goals. Note that you have to say "smacks of censorship", because it isn't in fact censorship. Moreover, "political reasons" aren't necessarily reprehensible. You have to address whether the particular political reasons are acceptable in this particular case. Now, if the FSF really has violated the accepted standards of citation just because they don't want to even mention non-free works, then I agree they've done themselves more harm than good. However, authors are under no obligation to mention other works which cover the same or similar material -- only works they have actually used. It is not necessary to follow the conventions of academic documents (papers, theses, and the like), where part of the game is to find related work, trace ideas to their source, etc. Note too that the inventors of AWK are given credit; it is just a particular book that is not mentioned. I don't think anyone has shown that that book was plagiarized or used in any way in the preparation of the GAWK manual. Of course, some people may still feel that standards of politeness, at least, have been violated; and others may feel that something more like the academic conventions should have been followed. And if enough people who would otherwise be support the FSF are turned off, the failure to cite the AWK book may prove to have been a mistake. However, we should also bear in mind that there are a number of people out there who, for various reasons, already oppose the FSF and are opportunistically looking for ways to argue that the FSF is inconsistent or otherwise wrong. These people won't be satisfied no matter what books are cited in the GAWK manual. -- JD
thor@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Rich Neitzel) (07/18/90)
In article <3014@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: |>In article <1990Jul3.111026.19698@twinsun.com> eggert@dew.twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) writes: |>> |>> But to refuse to cite a book purely for political reasons smacks of |>> censorship, and in the long run a reputation for censorship will hurt |>> the FSF far more than a few impure references to non-free works. The |>> FSF should be sensitive to the traditions of scholarly publication, |>> because they are natural and powerful allies of the FSF's goals. |> |>Note that you have to say "smacks of censorship", because it isn't |>in fact censorship. Moreover, "political reasons" aren't necessarily If I recall correctly, the book was cited in the original draft. Therefore removing it is indeed censorship. |>However, authors are under no obligation to mention other works which |>cover the same or similar material -- only works they have actually |>used. It is not necessary to follow the conventions of academic |>documents (papers, theses, and the like), where part of the game is |>to find related work, trace ideas to their source, etc. Note too |>that the inventors of AWK are given credit; it is just a particular |>book that is not mentioned. I don't think anyone has shown that |>that book was plagiarized or used in any way in the preparation of |>the GAWK manual. I find it hard to believe that the book in question was not used in some manner during the development of GAWK. The issue isn't simply whether it was used to prepare the GAWK manual, but whether it was used as part of the development of GAWK code. Now I find it hard it to believe that GAWK was truely reverse-engineered in "clean-room" fashion. Most likely the developers have read said book in order to further their understanding of awk. Richard Neitzel thor@thor.atd.ucar.edu Torren med sitt skjegg National Center For Atmospheric Research lokkar borni under sole-vegg Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307-3000 Gjo'i med sitt shinn 303-497-2057 jagar borni inn.
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) (07/18/90)
In article <8015@ncar.ucar.edu> thor@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Rich Neitzel) writes:
#If I recall correctly, the book was cited in the original draft.
#Therefore removing it is indeed censorship.
No, removing the reference is editing. Please learn the difference
between censorship and editing.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wtruesdel@sun418.nas.nasa.gov (David A. Truesdell) (07/19/90)
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes: >In article <8015@ncar.ucar.edu> thor@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Rich Neitzel) writes: >#If I recall correctly, the book was cited in the original draft. >#Therefore removing it is indeed censorship. >No, removing the reference is editing. Please learn the difference >between censorship and editing. How true. It was childish, immature, picayune, intellectually dishonest, conceited and in bad taste, but it is not censorship. -- T.T.F.N., dave truesdell (truesdel@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov)
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (07/19/90)
In article <8015@ncar.ucar.edu> thor@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Rich Neitzel) writes: >In article <3014@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: >|>Note that you have to say "smacks of censorship", because it isn't >|>in fact censorship. Moreover, "political reasons" aren't necessarily >If I recall correctly, the book was cited in the original draft. >Therefore removing it is indeed censorship. No it isn't. Editors edit. It's not enough just that a draft was changed. >I find it hard to believe that the book in question was not used in some >manner during the development of GAWK. What you find hard to believe and evidence are two different things. >The issue isn't simply whether it was used to prepare the GAWK manual, >but whether it was used as part of the development of GAWK code. Why? If I learned about AWK w/o any reference to the book -- perhaps from another book -- I could cite *that* book. It's only an academic convention (if that) that the original source, rather than (or in addition to) the one actually used, be cited. Ditto if the author of the GAWK manual learned about GAWK from another source, such as a person. If the other source used the AWK book or writes something using knowledge so derived, then that other source much cite the AWK book. >Now I find it hard it to believe that GAWK was truely reverse- >engineered in "clean-room" fashion. Who said it was? Maybe they talked to the designers. >Most likely the developers have read said book in order to further >their understanding of awk. Most likely isn't enough.
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (07/19/90)
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes: thor@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Rich Neitzel) writes: > #If I recall correctly, the book was cited in the original draft. > #Therefore removing it is indeed censorship. > No, removing the reference is editing. Censorship is a type of editing. Specifically, it is editing to remove that which is in some way--esp. morally--objectionable (as contrasted with things removed because they are irrelevant, incorrect, etc.). According to the earlier posting, the citation was obviously removed because it was found to be objectionable by FSF standards. If the act of removing the citation causes me x amount of bother, I am bothered at least 3x by the various attempts to explain away the act. >...Please learn the difference > between censorship and editing. If you would teach, first know. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Programs, not politics.
gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) (07/19/90)
Me:
#> No, removing the reference is editing.
Dick Dunn writes:
#Censorship is a type of editing. Specifically, it is editing to remove
#that which is in some way--esp. morally--objectionable (as contrasted with
#things removed because they are irrelevant, incorrect, etc.).
Since you are perfectly free to write your own GAWK manual, and
include Kernighan's book as a referece, it what the FSF is doing
cannot be censorship. A newspaper reporter is not censoring if he
fails to include everything you say if you are interviewed. The editor
of a newspaper is not censoring when he edits out cuss words from the
baseball player who was tagged out at home.
I ain't saying what the FSF did was a good thing, it just ain't
censorship.
#>...Please learn the difference
#> between censorship and editing.
#
#If you would teach, first know.
I do.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wdnk@yarra-glen.aaii.oz.au (David Kinny) (07/19/90)
In article <1990Jul19.004300.19165@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes: >The editor of a newspaper is not censoring when he edits out cuss words >from the baseball player who was tagged out at home. > >I ain't saying what the FSF did was a good thing, it just ain't >censorship. I haven't got Webster's handy, but the Concise Oxford defines censorship as "suppressing whole or parts of books, plays, films, letters, NEWS, etc. on the grounds of OBSCENITY, seditiousness, etc." (emphasis mine) i.e. precisely what you claim above is NOT censorship. >#>...Please learn the difference >#> between censorship and editing. ># >#If you would teach, first know. > >I do. You clearly don't, as you have made obvious to the world. >-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= David Kinny Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute dnk@aaii.oz.AU 1 Grattan Street Phone: +61 3 663 7922 CARLTON, VICTORIA 3053, AUSTRALIA -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= David Kinny Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute dnk@aaii.oz.AU 1 Grattan Street Phone: +61 3 663 7922 CARLTON, VICTORIA 3053, AUSTRALIA
arnold@audiofax.com (Arnold Robbins) (07/19/90)
SIGH. The Topic That Just Won't Die. I don't think I'm going to do any more following up on this topic after this. >> = article <8015@ncar.ucar.edu> thor@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Rich Neitzel) > = article <3030@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) >>Now I find it hard it to believe that GAWK was truely reverse- >>engineered in "clean-room" fashion. >Who said it was? Maybe they talked to the designers. > >>Most likely the developers have read said book in order to further >>their understanding of awk. >Most likely isn't enough. Just to set the record straight. All of the following were used during the production of the current versions of both the gawk program and the gawk manual: + "The AWK Programming Language", by Aho, Kernighan, and Weinberger. + The binary of the System V Release 3.1 program 'nawk'. + Lots of e-mail with Brian Kernighan, bwk@research.att.com. As I've said before, working with the FSF means playing by their rules. I don't care to say anything else about it. We now return you to our regular discussion on the values of tar/compress/uuencoded source postings.... -- Arnold Robbins AudioFAX, Inc. | Laundry increases 2000 Powers Ferry Road, #220 / Marietta, GA. 30067 | exponentially in the INTERNET: arnold@audiofax.com Phone: +1 404 933 7600 | number of children. UUCP: emory!audfax!arnold Fax: +1 404 933 7606 | -- Miriam Robbins
paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) (07/19/90)
Btw, the last time I checked, censorship is defined by most dictionaries to
be acts of suppression by governments via judges, censors, and legislatures.
I would suggest that if you all don't like the Gawk manual then you are more
than free to write your own. These little one-upmanship battles are getting
tiresome.
/pbp
--
Paul Pomes
UUCP: {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!paul Internet, BITNET: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
US Mail: UofIllinois, CSO, 1304 W Springfield Ave, Urbana, IL 61801-2987gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) (07/19/90)
David Kinny writes:
#I haven't got Webster's handy, but the Concise Oxford defines censorship as
#
# "suppressing whole or parts of books, plays, films, letters, NEWS, etc.
# on the grounds of OBSCENITY, seditiousness, etc." (emphasis mine)
Well, if you want to play in dueling dictionaries, Websters Seventh
lists it as
"An official who reads communications and deletes forbidden
material. " "To subject to censorship."
Since RMS is a private citizen, rewriting his own work, or the work of
his employees, what he is doing is editing, not censorship.
#You clearly don't, as you have made obvious to the world.
I love you too.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wnelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (07/19/90)
In article <1990Jul19.141325.6612@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes:
Btw, the last time I checked, censorship is defined by most dictionaries to
be acts of suppression by governments via judges, censors, and legislatures.
I would suggest that if you all don't like the Gawk manual then you are more
than free to write your own. These little one-upmanship battles are getting
tiresome.
More than that, you are free to take the Gawk manual that offends you
so, and add whatever citation to the AWK books you like. Such is
the power of the copyleft...
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
In Communism's central planning, citizens are told "you will make widgets".
In Capitalism's advertising, citizens are told "you will buy widgets".ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) (07/19/90)
demonstrating an ignorance of definitions,
In article <1990Jul19.004300.19165@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes:
# Censorship is a type of editing. Specifically, it is editing to
# remove that which is in some way--esp. morally--objectionable (as
# contrasted with things removed because they are irrelevant,
# incorrect, etc.).
...
The editor of a newspaper is not censoring when he edits out cuss
words from the baseball player who was tagged out at home.
I ain't saying what the FSF did was a good thing, it just ain't
censorship.
# >...Please learn the difference
# > between censorship and editing.
# If you would teach, first know.
I do.
from longman's dictionary of common english:
censor
0100 an official who examines printed matter, films, or (sometimes in war)
private letters with the power to remove anything offensive or (in war)
helpful to the enemy
--
Offer void except where prohibited by law.gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) (07/20/90)
Ted Dunning writes:
#demonstrating an ignorance of definitions,
#from longman's dictionary of common english:
#censor
#0100 an official who examines printed matter, films, or (sometimes in war)
#private letters with the power to remove anything offensive or (in war)
#helpful to the enemy
Perhaps you should look "official". RMS is a private citizen, and has
absolutely no power to prevent you from writing a GAWK manual that
reference the AWK book by Kernighan.
editing != censoring
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wshore@mtxinu.COM (Melinda Shore) (07/20/90)
[] Whether or not editing out the citation can be considered censorship isn't really relevant (and really isn't interesting). Removing the reference was dishonorable and in conflict with existing citation practice. One of the authors has verified that the book was used in writing the software. I am hard-pressed to think of circumstances under which it might be acceptable to fail to acknowledge one's sources. -- Melinda Shore shore@mtxinu.com mt Xinu ..!uunet!mtxinu.com!shore
harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP (Alton Harkcom) (07/20/90)
In article <1990Jul19.004300.19165@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes: =}Since you are perfectly free to write your own GAWK manual, and =}include Kernighan's book as a referece, it what the FSF is doing =}cannot be censorship. A newspaper reporter is not censoring if he =}fails to include everything you say if you are interviewed. The editor =}of a newspaper is not censoring when he edits out cuss words from the =}baseball player who was tagged out at home. If I write the word 'f*ck' in this manner then I have censored it. If I write it in its entirity and then change it to 'f*ck' then I have edited and censored it (due to my reasons for writing that way being objective). You are still free to write it in its entirity, but that does not change the fact that I censored it... PS: That editor better censor those cuss words or the FCC may remove a few of his rights. -- --harkcom@potato.pa.yokogawa.co.jp
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/21/90)
Personally, I don't think this is a case of "censorship". I do think it's pretty damn petty on the part of the editor, but that's another matter. However: In article <1990Jul19.004300.19165@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes: > A newspaper reporter is not censoring if he > fails to include everything you say if you are interviewed. That depends on what he fails to include. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
" Maynard) (07/21/90)
In article <1990Jul19.175923.2015@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes: >Perhaps you should look "official". RMS is a private citizen, and has >absolutely no power to prevent you from writing a GAWK manual that >reference the AWK book by Kernighan. He did, though, have the power to prevent the "official" GAWK manual from mentioning the reference. The comments of the author, about how working with the soi-disant FSF means playing by their rules, bear this out. >editing != censoring Editing can include censoring, though...the GAWK manual was edited for purely political reasons; therefore, it was censored. You're working awfully hard to defend the FSF from this charge, Greg... -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. "It's a hardware bug!" "It's a +---------------------------------------- software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (07/24/90)
In article <1990Jul18.211712.27198@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >> No, removing the reference is editing. > >Censorship is a type of editing. Yes. However, note that the message you are replying to was an answer to If I recall correctly, the book was cited in the original draft. Therefore removing it is indeed censorship. And indeed merely removing does not constitute censorship. > Specifically, it is editing to remove >that which is in some way--esp. morally--objectionable (as contrasted with >things removed because they are irrelevant, incorrect, etc.). No. When the military censors letters home to remove information that might be useful to the enemy, this is not because the information is objectionable, unless you take objectionable so widely that I find it hard to see how you would exclude such grounds as irrelevance. But you don't need to show that removing the citation was censorship to show it was wrong. Indeed, if the only grounds for saying it was wrong are that it is (supposedly) consorship, then I'm not impressed. Surely the issue is whether the AWK book was used in the preparation of the gawk manual in a way that requires citation or not. (BTW, I reply to the suggestion that it suffices if the AWK book was used in the development of the gawk *program* in another message. So I haven't forgotten this point.)
harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP (Alton Harkcom) (07/24/90)
In article <1990Jul19.160027.160@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes: =}Well, if you want to play in dueling dictionaries, Websters Seventh =}lists it as =} "An official who reads communications and deletes forbidden =} material. " "To subject to censorship." =} =}Since RMS is a private citizen, rewriting his own work, or the work of =}his employees, what he is doing is editing, not censorship. But you missed the importance of the second definition (which is the one that applies in this case). I don't think Webster's would leave you hanging on this one, so try looking up 'censorship' and you'll hopefully find something similar to what the previous poster found. If you only find "see censor" then you need a new dictionary because that ones jerking you around in circles... -- --harkcom@potato.pa.yokogawa.co.jp
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) (07/24/90)
Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard writes:
#He did, though, have the power to prevent the "official" GAWK manual
#from mentioning the reference. The comments of the author, about how
#working with the soi-disant FSF means playing by their rules, bear this
#out.
But since you can write your own GAWK manual, it has not been
censored. Look, this is getting tiresome. I am not trying to defend
what the FSF is doing, but trying to preserve the English (actually
American) language. There is a type of person that if someone does
something he doesn't like, he calls them a fascist, no matter what the
other persons political views are. If someone deletes something they
wrote, or their employee wrote, it is censorcism. If RMS were to
prevent Jay Maynard, or Dick Dunn from writing a GAWK manual that
reference Kernigahn, then that would be censorship.`
What the FSF is doing may not be right, but it ain't censorship.
#You're working awfully hard to defend the FSF from this charge,
#Greg...
It ain't them I'm defending.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wharrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison) (07/25/90)
In article <3014@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: > I don't think anyone has shown that > that book[*] was plagiarized or used in any way in the preparation of > the GAWK manual. [*] The Awk Programming Language But it is inconceivable that the GAWK software could have been written without some reference to either the book or the man page that is distributed with the Aho, Weinberger, and Kernighan version. -- Mark Harrison harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (214)518-5050 {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison standard disclaimers apply...