Interview with Larry Wall

Alfred Bacon writes "There will be an interview with Larry Wall on The Paula Gordon Show available on Saturday at 3:00 pm EST. It is an hour long in RealAudo format broken up into 10 minute segments. Mr. Wall will be discussing Perl, Free Software and the Open Source movement. It should be worth listening to."

Comments

Re:Mass Media perverts the message, IMHO.

[Arandir]

First: the FSF isn't involved with Open Source.

So, you're saying that gcc, emacs, GNOME and all the other FSF software is not Open Source! Wow! You'd better let RMS know that people are treating it as Open Source by copying, modifying and distributing it.

There may be two different communities (the dogs versus the canines), but the software is the SAME! No difference. Every OS program is also FS, and vice versa.

Good for the newbie... Good for the preacher...

[Zarf]

If you don't know GNU from Unix then you'll get a nice introduction. This interview obviously isn't for the slashdot set. It is definately for the Director's, Manager's, and other people who are intrested in matters Open Source or PERL but just don't know a register increment from the bit-bucket.

So from that perspective, this is a nice little piece... and it's news for nerds in that the interview is good for use as evangalism... pass the link around to those whom you feel are ready for the good-news brothers and sisters!

- // Zarf //

Re:Mass Media perverts the message, IMHO.

[Arandir]

Neither Sun's Community license nor the APSL are Open Source licenses. Try again.

You can find a list of approved Open Source licenses at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

perl.au

[11thangel]

Ah, megs of realaudio just for this:

"hello, this is larry wall, and i pronounce perl, perl"

Larry Wall Interview

[amccall]

I saw the title and got my hopes up, but why not? Of all the interesting people slashdot has interviewed, why not do an interview with Mr. Wall? Or has it already been done? I don't remember one. You'd think he'd be willing with slashdot what it is: the only question is whether or not he would have the time. Think about the questions you could ask. Did the creation of perl involve alcohol? What does he think of obfuscated perl contests and slashcode?

Re:Mass Media perverts the message, IMHO.

[Arandir]

What is to stop the community losing sight of it's goals...

What goals are those? Everyone has their own set of goals, and the only one I can find universal to the Free Source community is "share your individual creations." There's no way that statistics and popularity contests can affect this goal.

The community does not equate to the FSF. Not everyone is an ideologue. Larry Wall has consistantly represented a large portion of the community, and there's no reason to complain about him giving an interview just because he won't be talking about changing the world through licensing.

Mass Media perverts the message, IMHO.

[Kiss the Blade]

I am as enthusiastic about Open Source Software as the next guy on this site, but the increasingly publicity-orientated motives of the community worries me intensely.

What is to stop the community losing sight of it's goals when it becomes obsessed with user statistics & popularity contests? The community should be about word-of-mouth propogation, not mass media hype. The message that open source software from the FSF sends out is only achieved through direct use, not by glitzy advertising campaigns & talking heads.

The community approach has worked very well so far, why shouldn't work in the future?

KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.

Re:Mass Media perverts the message, IMHO.

[luge]

Every OS program is also FS, and vice versa. That is so absolutely wrong I don't know where to start... but I guess I'll start by paraphrasing RMS: "Please don't call me a member of the Open Source movement." Open Source software (as defined by the OSI) includes just about any software to which the source is available, regardless on the constraints which are placed on the use of that source once obtained. For example, many "Open Source" licenses allow corporate sponsors special rights, including the ability to close the code, use code in closed source products, and other such things. In contrast, Free Software (as defined by RMS and co.) is software which is (generally speaking) very liberally licensed- virtually no constraints can be placed on anyone who gets the source, except that they must also share the source. These are radically different- Open Source does include Free Software, but the reverse is very clearly not true (as RMS is always reminding everyone.) Please don't spread that misconception.
~luge

Re:Mass Media perverts the message, IMHO.

[RickHunter]

First: the FSF isn't involved with Open Source. Please, please, please be careful about confusing that with Free Software. Most of the people on both sides of the naming issue tend to be very prickly about it.

And how does an interview with Larry Wall, who's a cool guy, turn into publicity? Chances are, someone will here the interview, be interested, and start looking into things in more depth. That's basically what happened to me, a couple of years back. ^_^

-RickHunter

Re:Mass Media perverts the message, IMHO.

[Arandir]

I don't think a single one of them has paid attention to the definition when talking about Open Sourcing their products. That's one of the (many) problems RMS and the FSF have with the term and movement.

Any word can be abused. The number of proprietary software products that label themselves as "free" is staggering. It's a very specious argument to disparage "open source" as a term open to abuse when the alternative is a term much more abused.

Re:Mass Media perverts the message, IMHO.

[Arandir]

paraphrasing RMS: "Please don't call me a member of the Open Source movement."

I didn't call him a "member". The Free Software Movement(tm) is distinct from all other software movements, but the movement IS NOT the software.

Open Source software (as defined by the OSI) includes just about any software to which the source is available

Please read the OSD. Many restrictions are placed on the software licensing before it can be acknowleged "Open Source". The OSD is the same as the Free Software definition of the FSF, only worded legally and precisely, instead of a vague and changing series of essays.

For example, many "Open Source" licenses allow corporate sponsors special rights, including the ability to close the code

Licenses don't do this, copyright law does. Any time he would want to (brain tumor for example), RMS as the copyright holder could release a version of emacs under a proprietary license. But he couldn't affect any existing copies of emacs, nor could ANY Open Source license affect any existing copies of OSS software.

no constraints can be placed on anyone who gets the source, except that they must also share the source.

You're describing copyleft, not free software. Many software licenses fully acknowledged by RMS to be Free Software licenses do not compel the user to share the source code. Examples include BSD and MIT licenses. Notably missing in RMS's definition of Free Software is the requirement that it be copylefted under a GNU license. In fact, there is only ONE Open Source license that RMS does not acknowledge as free (Artistic), but that is only because the license is vague, not because it is restrictive.

If your argument is that Copyleft is not the same as Open Source, then I will fully agree. Ditto for any assertions that the Copyleft Movement(tm) is not the same as the Open Source movement. But by the same token, Copyleft is not the same as Free Software!

These are radically different- Open Source does include Free Software, but the reverse is very clearly not true

Please list one (just one) Open Source Software program that is not also a Free Software program. It is possible, I'll admit, but it would take a mighty good lawyer to follow the OSD while violating the Free Software definition.