Kop

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Wiktionary Tutorial
• Community Portal
• Entry layout explained
• Criteria for inclusion
• FAQ
• How to edit a page
• How to start a page
• Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my edits

Hi,

I saw you fixed upgrade and had some comment on patch. Thanks. I've put some comment on talk:patch. You might also want to take a look at hunk, apply a patch, patch file, diff, diff file, apply, diff program, and patch program because I mucked about in those too and am both new to wikitionary and not entirely comfortable with phrases like "transitive verb". You may also be interested in the questions raised in User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie#Please_hit_me_with_a_cluestick. If you're not interested that's ok too. Thanks. --kop 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I at least get the {{computing}}. Now time to pay attention to the other (templates?). --kop 02:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries! There are many templates and tricks available. E.g, on talk pages and Wiktionary namespace pages, you can avoid the "<nowiki>...</nowiki>" if you want via the "{{temp}}" shortcut template, e.g.: "{{temp|computing}}". As you can see, that displays as "{{computing}}". Also, FYI, we're working on simplifying the "part of speech healine templates" (a.k.a. "inflection templates"), which are used exclusively as the first line after "===Noun===", "===Verb===", etc., so you many not have to worry too much about memorizing {{en-infl-reg-other-e}} et al. Anyway, your computing entries look great. You deftly explained the proper noun sense of "patch" etc. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have entries for everything from "abstract base class" and "backreference", to "zero-based arrays". Anyway, cheers and happy editing! Rod (A. Smith) 04:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

open-source etc

open-source is correctly hyphenated as an adjective. The associated noun is open source. SemperBlotto 11:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I swear I searched for "open source" and got redirected to "open-source", but not now. Oh well. Anyhow I see "open source" used as an adjective all the time, but have never seen "open-source" used at all. And shouldn't there be an "Open Source" proper noun? --kop 11:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just "corrected" the redirect. Add the proper noun if you can find evidence. Hyphenating adjectives from nouns that have multiple words is standard practice in English. SemperBlotto 11:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, programmers don't write in English.  :-) Anyhow I'm going to go ahead and remove the rfc as you've addressed my concerns. Thanks.--kop 11:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

macro body

See this entry for how to use the macro cleverly. p.s. I used to enjoy writing IBM assembler macros (many years ago). conditional assembly language here and in -pedia are mine, and I really must expand the -pedia article sometime (but I didn't steal any manuals when I left work!). SemperBlotto 16:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. I too _loved_ writing 360/370 assembly. IMO the 360/370 assembly manual is probably the best treatise on assembly ever written. Unfortunately, I have only a copy of the 360/370 system architecture manual, not the assembly manual.  :-(

IIRC you wrote the original macro definition. I've since beaten the original out of existance. You might want to look at the latest revision and the related definitions. And you might want to comment on User Talk:Connel MacKenzie#Macro and related Wiktionary definitions vis Wiktionary templates. --kop 16:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

copyleft

How is what you described, not "releasing under a copyleft license"? There's no distinct sense there - just slamming in verbosity for the sake of ... what? --Connel MacKenzie 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference, here is the verb "sense" I added:

• To use copyright law to maximize the rights to a work transferred from licensor to licensee, subject to 2 constraints: that the licensor remains without obligation to the licensee, and that the subsequent licensing of any modifications made to the original work preserve the properties and constraints here described.

You are right. There is no distinct sense there. However, I'm slamming in verbosity for the sake of precision. I don't like basing the definition on the adjective, and find the definition of the adjective too sloppy. The verb came first, was motivated by the specific goals described, and all other meaning flows from that act. My definition is 19% longer than the definition of the adjective, and, for reasons given below, better describes what copylefting is. I believe it precisely describes what copylefting is and so the adjective definition could be reduced to "A license that copylefts", something I did not think to do. (A change which makes my definition either a 12 or 13% increase, depending on whether you're counting by word or by character. Upon reflection, and without recaculating the percentages, a better adjective definition might be "A copyright license that copylefts". Whatever.)

The advantage of my definition is that it eliminates any requirements for mentioning source code, or tivoization, or any other details-of-the-moment. All rights not mentioned are passed to the licensee, which is the point. (The right to obtain source code, the right to install modified code, etc., etc.) Being more general, I believe my definition better describes the technique when applied in fields other than programming.

I guess what sums it up is that I believe that copyleft is a technique and should be defined as such; a verb. Something that people do, like crochet, rather than some property that things just happen to have. I suppose it'd also be fine to define the noun, as e.g. in the case of blog, and let the other senses take their meaning from that. I believe a noun definition based on my definition above would be better suited than the current adjectival definition because my definition expresses intent whereas the adjectival definition is strictly procedural, and copyright (or at least, surely, copyleft) licenses are expressions of the author's intent. (Just begin with "A copyright licenses which maximizes...".) What are your thoughts?

It occurs to me, and I don't know if this is consistent with wiktionary policy or not, that one way forward is to write RMS, who, as the originator of the technique, may well have useful input. He does answer all his email, in my experience and according to everything I've read. We could, together, come up with 2 definitions and see which he prefers and why. Obviously RMS does not have the final say. The word has a life of it's own or it shouldn't be in the wiktionary, but it's an idea. --kop 04:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As a separate matter, what was wrong with the European Union Public License reference and quote? I thought wiktionary wanted real world citations and references.

Regular copyright licenses tell the licensee what he can do, and all else is prohibited. Copyleft licenses tell the licensee what he can't do, and all else is permitted. If the definition does not reflect this fundamental then it's just not accurate. --kop 14:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there was nothing "wrong" with the EUPL quotation. I clicked [rollback] and commented here then rushed off to the next thing. I should have found the place for the quote, but it seemed more important to comment here, at the time.

Now, we're all here because of the GFDL. Right? There are a near infinite number of non-free alternatives out there - the only reason for someone to choose to help Wiktionary is because they understand the freedom they are granting the entire world, with each minor contribution. (There are jokesters and pranksters too - but they get board with it all, pretty quickly.) So, essentially everyone here has a profound knowledge of what copyleft is, prior to re-reading our definition for it.

As much as I don't want to make an excuse, I think that factor may have mislead me. The plain verbosity of the verb definition wasn't the problem that galled me though - it was the redundancy. You didn't amend the definition that was there; you added a separate definition, is if it were a homonym or something (which coincidently arrived at the exact same meaning!)

Having re-read it three times now, I can't pinpoint any complaint with the longer definition, except that it is long. The short definition is, on reflection, too short. As long as you replace that definition with yours, I promise to behave. --Connel MacKenzie 17:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)