Argh, I didn't include before sending.
Here are the old posts from my old mail, headers and all, with the
discussions from when we fixed the license. I'd forgotten just how much
more, uhh, perturbed John Weiss was about the High Church of Emacs than
I was :)
And it was Asger, not Lars, who committed the change. I'd been
expecting one more round of editing, so there's a clause missing. 5)
should have become 6), with the new 5) reserving the future editing to
us rather than the FSF. (I wouldn't include this now; we really only
get one bite at the apple on clarification).
I also wasn't able to get the word "muttonhead" in, for which I again
apologize to John Weiss :)
hawk
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.101)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:59:22 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 3882 invoked by uid 514); 13 Jan 1999 18:00:29 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 1416
Received: (qmail 3870 invoked from network); 13 Jan 1999 18:00:28 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on IRIX
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:54:28 -0600 (CST)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Center for Computational Mechanics,
Washington University, St. Louis
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Roland Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Richard E. Hawkins Esq." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: license clarification
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3243
Lines: 77
Hi
My wife is a lawyer and I went to law school with her (sorta...)
Anyway I have asked her earlier (in the contents of the whole
Qt-KDE-GPL-RedHat mess). She pretty much said the exact same thing
than you Rick. She wouldnt offer legal council even if I volunteered
doing dishes for a week..
Anyway I think that you proposal sounds very reasonable even for
non lawyers. A discussion with OSS enthusiasts will certainly follow
but someone should really clarify this issue once and for all
(of course there is no such thing in the law).
Roland
On 13-Jan-99 Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote:
>
> While we're cleaning up, it might be a good idea to clarify the
> license, even if we don't switch.
>
> Regardless of our past statements, lyx is not GPL, but quasi-GPL.
>
> The act of releasing LyX under the GPL while it dependent upon xforms
> has two interpetations:
> 1) we're complete idiots and in violation of our license (the debian
> view :)
> 2) The license is modified by our actions (all Common Law (english
> speaking) countries, and I presume civil code countries, and I
> expect anywhere else where the rule of law is real).
>
> So before there's a KDE-style nightmare, I suggest language along these
> lines:
>
> "While LyX has been released nominally under the GPL in the past, it
> has in fact never been truly GPL. Particularly, it has always been
> linked to a closed source library. While some have taken a view that
> such actions violate the GPL, this is a legal impossibility. The law
> is quite clear that the release of the software by the original authors
> and copyright holders changed the licenses.
>
> "Rather than leaving the issue to be debated, the following
> clarifications are given. This is not a change of license, but a
> clarification of the license that LyX has always used.
>
> "1) LyX is quasi-GPL software. The terms of the GPL apply save where
> they conflict with this statement.
>
> "2) There is no limitation on the license or nature of any software,
> source, binary, library, or other, that may be linked to LyX, or to
> which LyX may be linked. Particularly, clauses *** of the GPL are
> rejected in their entirety.
>
> "3) There is no limitation on combining LyX source code with code
> subject to any other license, provided that the LyX source remains
> under this same license. Particularly, clause ** of the GPL is
> rejected in its entirety.
>
> "4) Any other clause or interpretation of the GPL limiting the
> combination of other software of any type and LyX is rejected in its
> entirety, provided that the LyX code and modifications to the LyX
> source dode remains under this same license.
>
> "5) Nothing in this statement purports to alter or interpret the
> license of any other software. Any combination of other software with
> LyX must also meet the requirements of that software."
>
> Although I'd prefer to replace the "legal impossibility" with "only a
> complete muttonhead could conclude", but I suppose that would be
> impolitic :)
>
> rick, esq.
>
> --
>
Roland Krause
Visiting Research Associate - Center for Computational Mechanics
Washington University, Saint Louis
Roland Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.101)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:58:53 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 20400 invoked by uid 514); 14 Jan 1999 15:59:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 1450
Received: (qmail 20390 invoked from network); 14 Jan 1999 15:59:32 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:57:18 -0500
From: John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: license clarification
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.2
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from Richard E. Hawkins Esq. on Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at
11:11:37AM -0600
Status: O
Content-Length: 1613
Lines: 35
On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 11:11:37AM -0600, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote:
> "2) There is no limitation on the license or nature of any software,
> source, binary, library, or other, that may be linked to LyX, or to
> which LyX may be linked. Particularly, clauses *** of the GPL are
> rejected in their entirety.
Rich, since you're our legal expert, could you go through the GPL and
complete the "***"? Also make sure that this clarification doesn't
mangle the GPL, and make the clarification "proper legalese".
That way, when the muttonheads try to debate the statement, I can
retort, "Well, yes, that's nice. HOWEVER, our lawyer crafted the
language your're attempting to nitpick; so, from a legal standpoint,
all of your statements are utter hogwash.
> Although I'd prefer to replace the "legal impossibility" with "only a
> complete muttonhead could conclude", but I suppose that would be
> impolitic :)
Make a footnote to the "legal impossibility" [in text files, those
always turn into endnotes], stating that "only a complete muttonhead
could conclude" and explain why only a compelte muttonhead could ever
come to that conclusion. Cite the appropriate jurisprudence to
impress/intimidate people.
One can deal with 90% of complainers by arguing them into a corner and
beting them over the head with vast, superior knowledge. The other
10% are either too mentally deficient to get it, or, more likely, on
some Great Fundamentalist Holy War. In the case of the latter,
efforts to convince, sway, or deflect such persons are useless [as are
the persons in question, IMNSHO].
--
John Weiss
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.101)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:04:55 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 20799 invoked by uid 514); 14 Jan 1999 16:05:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 1452
Received: (qmail 20788 invoked from network); 14 Jan 1999 16:05:25 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:02:48 -0500
From: John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: license clarification
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.2
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from Richard E. Hawkins Esq. on Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at
03:15:21PM -0600
Status: O
Content-Length: 893
Lines: 22
On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 03:15:21PM -0600, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote:
> btw, since my licenses are inactive to save $700/year in fees, my
> suggestion isn't legal advice, etc.
Okay, so we add another endnote with that as a disclaimer. "Crafted
by a LyX developer who is an inactive lawyer [he'd be a lawyer if he
were willing to pay the $700/year in fees to keep his licenses
active]...."
Acceptable?
> I think it's only the hardcore church-of-emacs and "GPL uber alles"
> crowd that will object, but they object to anything but pure GPL . . .
Of course, if I had my druthers, I'd add to the license that "LyX could
not be distributed by members of the FSF [or Debian, if we wanted to
honk the GPL-fanatics there off] for version x.x.x, and only version
x.x.x, because we feel that they're muttonheads". But then again, you
know I like to be spiteful. <evil gryn>
--
John Weiss
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.101)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:44:26 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 6833 invoked by uid 514); 25 Jan 1999 17:41:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 1777
Received: (qmail 6823 invoked from network); 25 Jan 1999 17:41:03 -0000
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 (debian)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: GPL is a disaster
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:43:12 -0600
From: "Richard E. Hawkins Esq." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2852
Lines: 64
After sitting down and reading this thing this morning, I've come to a
legal conclusion (which isn't legal advice :): This thing is a
disaster, written by an amateur. It's largely well done for an
amateurish work, but it still shows.
It doesn't seem to actually include what either rms or his critics say.
Particularly, the word "link" does not appear until the final
paragraph, in a suggestion to use the LGPL if linking is desired.
I'm trying to figure out which section prevents linking. It could be
the second full paragraph of section 2:
>These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
>identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
>and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
>themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
>sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
>distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
>on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
>this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
>entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Or it could be section 3, which seems to the "system binaries
exception":
>The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
>making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
>code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
>associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
>control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
>special exception, the source code distributed need not include
>anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
>form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
>operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
>itself accompanies the executable.
But I don't think that this "exception" covers materials that any
reasonable reading of the prior sentence governs.
Given the time constraints, we're stuck with our modified GPL for 1.0.
But I think we aslo want to make it clear under section 9 on revisions
to keep the spirit of the license that we plan to replace our
disclaimers with a complete revision. While it says that the FSF can
do this, our modifications put us in place to make the revisions.
To return to my prior suggestions, and Garths's requests, the sections
that I propose we specifically disclaim are:
a) the preamble,
b) The second full paragraph of section two (contagious & imperialistic
license). Maybe add language making clear that the lyx code has to
stay under the lyx license.
c) Section 3, second full paragraph. Replace universal code with "code
governed by this license"
d) "Everything from "How to Apply These TErms . . ." on
rick
--
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.101)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:05:26 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 13717 invoked by uid 514); 25 Jan 1999 23:00:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 1802
Received: (qmail 13707 invoked from network); 25 Jan 1999 23:00:41 -0000
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GPL is a disaster
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes)
Date: 25 Jan 1999 23:29:27 +0100
In-Reply-To: "Richard E. Hawkins Esq."'s message of "Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:43:12 -0600"
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3
Status: RO
Content-Length: 154
Lines: 6
I'd say: Work with the FSF to make the GPL really say what it tries to
say. I don't think Lyx should have its own GPL derived "corrected"
lisence.
Lgb
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.101)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:12:01 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 14286 invoked by uid 514); 25 Jan 1999 23:07:25 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 1805
Received: (qmail 14276 invoked from network); 25 Jan 1999 23:07:24 -0000
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 (debian)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bj nnes)
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GPL is a disaster
In-reply-to: Your message of "25 Jan 1999 23:29:27 +0100."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:11:25 -0600
From: "Richard E. Hawkins Esq." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 853
Lines: 32
lars lamented,
> I'd say: Work with the FSF to make the GPL really say what it tries to
> say. I don't think Lyx should have its own GPL derived "corrected"
> lisence.
That doesn't solve our problem, though. As I'm reading it, lyx is ok =
with what it says, but not with what it's accepted to say.
If the GPL says any of what its proponents say it does about linked =
libraries, we're plain and simply not GPL; we're already a GPL derived =
license. The question is what we do about it to avoid a debian/kde =
type situation. Come to think of it, i'm not aware of *any* =
differences between the lyx/xforms and KDE/qt relationships, other than =
that we're not connected to any holy wars. (However, if KDE is =
actually a descendant of gpl software that used something gpl rather =
than qt, the distinction could be made).
rick
-- =
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:09:17 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 21741 invoked by uid 514); 28 Jan 1999 21:03:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 1940
Received: (qmail 21726 invoked from network); 28 Jan 1999 21:03:44 -0000
From: "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Debian bug #32299 in LyX
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:56:30 +0100 (MET)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL19 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: O
Content-Length: 1608
Lines: 51
Hi!
I noticed by coincidence that there is a "critical"
bug in the Debian package for LyX regarding the
copyright.
The bug is number 32299.
The question is whether the clarification of the
licensing question we have put on the web page is
a change to the license or an attempt at a
clarification. I can confirm that it is the
latter. We have not changed the license as such.
I have not followed the discussion on the debian
legal mailing list, so I'm not sure what the
problem is regarding distributing LyX with
Debian.
However, what I do know is that the LyX Team
has agreed that the current license by which
LyX is distributed (the GPL) is sufficient
in the sense that our interpretation of it is
not in conflict with the XForms license.
I'm not a legal expert, but my understanding is
that in the act of applying the license to LyX,
and thus linking with XForms, the offending parts
of the license are legally nullified, and this is
what we have stated in the clarification.
In other words: We are not ready to change the
license as such, because we feel it would make
things worse (invention yet another license), but
we are ready to clarify our interpretation of the
license.
This has been done in the cvs version of LyX,
and will be part of LyX v1.0.0, which is due
the 1st of February.
If you have any comments on this decision, please
reply to both me, and the lyx developers mailing
list which is cc'ed on this letter.
If the question is a matter of clarifying the
clarification, we are of course ready to do so,
as long as it is in line with our decision.
Greets,
Asger Alstrup
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from vidar.diku.dk (really [130.225.96.249]) by eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with esmtp (ident root using rfc1413)
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:28:05 -0600 (EST)
Received: from tyr.diku.dk ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [130.225.96.226])
by vidar.diku.dk (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id WAA19351;
Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:16:29 +0100 (MET)
From: "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by tyr.diku.dk (8.9.0/8.9.0) id WAA17466;
Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:16:28 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian bug #32299 in LyX
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:16:28 +0100 (MET)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Richard E. Hawkins Esq." at "Jan 28, 99
03:19:32 pm"
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL19 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: O
Content-Length: 1406
Lines: 40
> I *really* think we need more than the web page says. Particularly,
> the sections of the body which we specifically disclaim.
>
> I believe the solution is a clarification that provides:
>
> 1) the legal reasons that we aren't GPL.
> 2) That the clarification is not a *change* in the license
> 3) The sections of the body that we disclaim, and possibly (my
> prefference) the preamble and postscript.
As I recall, you did post such a clarification on this list
a while ago, but I've lost it, and I didn't see much talk
about it.
I suggest that you find the mail in your archive, trim it
up such that it is ready to stuff on top of the LICENSING file,
and then we do if, unless somebody disagrees.
It's fine to do 1)-3) with me.
I sent the mail to the debain guy, because I noticed that
the LyX problem was "holding back" Debian 1.3, because they
judged it to be a "critical" bug. (Politics...)
Hopefully, we can resolve this problem this way.
I wanted to fix the web pages on la1ad today for the 1.0
release, but unfortunately, I can't telnet into the box
anymore! I don't know what happened (Lgb?), but the fact
is that I do not have a snapshot to work from, and thus
I haven't managed to do any work.
What is worse: I don't have time to do a complete
overhaul of the web pages as intended before the 1st
of February...
Now, I'll start working on the click policy stuff.
Greets,
Asger
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:54:15 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 23475 invoked by uid 514); 28 Jan 1999 21:49:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 1948
Received: (qmail 23465 invoked from network); 28 Jan 1999 21:49:11 -0000
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 (debian)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian bug #32299 in LyX
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:16:28 +0100."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:53:26 -0600
From: "Richard E. Hawkins Esq." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status: O
Content-Length: 4572
Lines: 109
asger added,
>I iterated,
> > I *really* think we need more than the web page says. Particularly,
> > the sections of the body which we specifically disclaim.
> > I believe the solution is a clarification that provides:
> > 1) the legal reasons that we aren't GPL.
> > 2) That the clarification is not a *change* in the license
> > 3) The sections of the body that we disclaim, and possibly (my
> > prefference) the preamble and postscript.
> As I recall, you did post such a clarification on this list
> a while ago, but I've lost it, and I didn't see much talk
> about it.
I don't know if that was due to universal agreement, or apathy. BUt
there was discussion of where to put "muttonhead" :)
> I suggest that you find the mail in your archive, trim it
> up such that it is ready to stuff on top of the LICENSING file,
> and then we do if, unless somebody disagrees.
> It's fine to do 1)-3) with me.
Here it is, with modifications from earlier in the week. I propose
that the license in the root directory be this file, which references
the GPL pushed a level down, so that it can not be mistaken for the
license.
"While LyX has been released nominally under the GPL in the past, it
has in fact never been truly GPL. Particularly, it has always been
linked to a closed source library. While some have taken a view that
such actions violate the GPL, this is a legal impossibility. The law
is quite clear that the release of the software by the original authors
and copyright holders changed the licenses.
"Rather than leaving the issue to be debated, the following
clarifications are given. This is *not* a change of license, but a
clarification of the license that LyX has always used. All patches
submitted to LyX fall under this same license.
"1) LyX is quasi-GPL software. The terms of the GPL apply save where
they conflict with this statement.
"2) There is no limitation on the license or nature of any software,
source, binary, library, or other, that may be linked to LyX, or to
which LyX may be linked. Particularly, the second full paragraph of
section 2, from 'These requirements apply to the modified work'
through 'who wrote it.' is rejected in its entirety.
"3) There is no limitation on combining LyX source code with code
subject to any other license, provided that the LyX source remains
under this same license. Particularly, Section 3 of the GPL is
rejected in its entirety. To redistribute a modified version of LyX,
the entire source code of the modified LyX must be made available under
the terms of this license or such other licenses as apply to portions
of the original or modified code.
"4) Any other clause or interpretation of the GPL limiting the
combination of other software of any type and LyX is rejected in its
entirety, provided that the LyX code and modifications to the LyX
source code remains under this same license, or such other licenses as
apply to portions of the original or modified code.
"5) Nothing in this statement purports to alter or interpret the
license of any other software. Any combination of other software with
LyX must also meet the requirements of that software."
Although I'd prefer to replace the "legal impossibility" with "only a
complete muttonhead could conclude", but I suppose that would be
impolitic :) I think it's john who really wants to use "muttonhead."
While the way I've worded 3 & 4 could give us BSDish sections, in which
it would not be necessary to distribute source for additions, It's
not immediately clear that there's another way to do this that
accommodates xforms.
Does anyone have the whole archive of patches? It may be worth seeing
if there's anyone not still in contact that has any copyright claims,
and switch to the artistic license (but not for 1.0.0).
rick
> I sent the mail to the debain guy, because I noticed that
> the LyX problem was "holding back" Debian 1.3, because they
> judged it to be a "critical" bug. (Politics...)
> Hopefully, we can resolve this problem this way.
>
> I wanted to fix the web pages on la1ad today for the 1.0
> release, but unfortunately, I can't telnet into the box
> anymore! I don't know what happened (Lgb?), but the fact
> is that I do not have a snapshot to work from, and thus
> I haven't managed to do any work.
>
> What is worse: I don't have time to do a complete
> overhaul of the web pages as intended before the 1st
> of February...
>
> Now, I'll start working on the click policy stuff.
>
> Greets,
>
> Asger
>
--
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:37:43 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 26525 invoked by uid 514); 29 Jan 1999 03:33:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 1958
Received: (qmail 26515 invoked from network); 29 Jan 1999 03:33:01 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:25:09 -0600
From: David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: SLUG
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian bug #32299 in LyX
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: O
Content-Length: 2116
Lines: 56
"Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I noticed by coincidence that there is a "critical"
> bug in the Debian package for LyX regarding the
> copyright.
>
> The bug is number 32299.
>
> The question is whether the clarification of the
> licensing question we have put on the web page is
> a change to the license or an attempt at a
> clarification. I can confirm that it is the
> latter. We have not changed the license as such.
>
> I have not followed the discussion on the debian
> legal mailing list, so I'm not sure what the
> problem is regarding distributing LyX with
> Debian.
Basically there is two problems.
First, Debian (if I understand correctly) hasn't usually accepted the
"legal nullification" theory. Currently being a Debian user and not a
developer, I'm not really qualified to answer as to how they'll accept
it in this case.
Second, nothing like the clarification of the license is included in the
Debian copyright file. Having the clarification included in the
copyright file would be a great improvement.
> In other words: We are not ready to change the
> license as such, because we feel it would make
> things worse (invention yet another license), but
> we are ready to clarify our interpretation of the
> license.
Probably a bit out of line here, but have you checked out the LGPL or
the Artistic License? They would appear to work similarily, but
unquestionably allow the code to be linked to XForms.
As for the clarification, that probably won't be neccesarry. The
clarification is everything it needs to be, now it just needs to be
added to the copyright file.
Has anyone checked out porting LyX to Fltk? It supposed to be somewhat
compatable with XForms. Checking out the difficulty of that port and
possibly working on that is on my list of projects to do.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dullard: someone who, wanting a piece of information, takes down the
appropriate volume of the encyclopedia, looks up the item they need, and
then puts the volume away without reading anything else. - Peter
Dell'Orto, paraphrased from Philip Jose Farmer
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp (ident qmailr using rfc1413)
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:49:33 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 6745 invoked by uid 514); 29 Jan 1999 15:44:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 2014
Received: (qmail 6735 invoked from network); 29 Jan 1999 15:44:26 -0000
From: "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: License updated in cvs repository
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:37:07 +0100 (MET)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Richard E. Hawkins Esq." at "Jan 29, 99
09:36:56 am"
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL19 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
Content-Length: 452
Lines: 12
> I had another thoguth on the way in this morning. We are stuck with an
> ugly kludge of a license; all my text does was explain it. Should we
> ad a line requiring that patches must permit a switch to the artistic
> license (or whatever?) so we can go to a clean, standard license in the
> future?
Hopefully, the problem will be less acute in the future, because
we will be able to link to GTK+ (or GTK-- once that is stable.)
Greets,
Asger
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 05:12:29 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 30691 invoked by uid 514); 31 Jan 1999 11:07:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 2051
Received: (qmail 30681 invoked from network); 31 Jan 1999 11:07:55 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 20:46:08 -0500
From: John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian bug #32299 in LyX
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.2
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen on Fri, Jan 29, 1999
at 11:59:34AM +0100
Status: O
Content-Length: 1884
Lines: 40
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 11:59:34AM +0100, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> > First, Debian (if I understand correctly) hasn't usually accepted the
> > "legal nullification" theory. Currently being a Debian user and not a
> > developer, I'm not really qualified to answer as to how they'll accept
> > it in this case.
>
> In this case, that's just too bad.
...and completely bass-ackwards, dain-bramaged nonsense.
> It's difficult for us to change the license, because that requires
> us to contact all contributors over the last four years, and get their
> consent.
We should *really* go through the CREDITS file, contact all therein,
and get them to consent to giving the LyX Team official permission to
make changes to copyright as wee deem necessary, as long as such
changes are not for commercial gain. Rich, could you ponder a
paragraph stating something like that? We could then also put
soemthing on the web page/in the source distribution asking long-lost
contributors to get in touch with us.
Really, this is an annoying loose end that will only grow worse. In
practice, anyone who contributes a patch to LyX has "veto power" on
license, copyright, and other changes only so long as they're
semi-active members of the develpment team. It is assumed that anyone
who abandons their corner of the code "bequeaths" it to the team. In
principle, certain GPL-fundamentalist nutcases who shall remain
nameless [Debian] go stomping around claiming we put LyX under a
license that makes it illegal for anyone to ever run LyX and other
such horseshit. To shut them up, I'd like to stuff a sock down their
throats. However, others on the team would prefer not to resort to
violence. ;) Performing the admittedly long and tedious task is our
only alternative.
We need to do it at some point. Why not now, during the shakedown/bug
reporting period of 1.0?
--
John Weiss
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 07:16:56 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 25875 invoked by uid 514); 1 Feb 1999 13:12:06 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 2104
Received: (qmail 25865 invoked from network); 1 Feb 1999 13:12:06 -0000
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 (debian)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian bug #32299 in LyX
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 30 Jan 1999 20:46:08 EST."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 07:16:21 -0600
From: "Richard E. Hawkins Esq." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status: O
Content-Length: 2403
Lines: 56
weiss wondered,
> We should *really* go through the CREDITS file, contact all therein,
> and get them to consent to giving the LyX Team official permission to
> make changes to copyright as wee deem necessary, as long as such
> changes are not for commercial gain. Rich, could you ponder a
> paragraph stating something like that? We could then also put
> soemthing on the web page/in the source distribution asking long-lost
> contributors to get in touch with us.
i'd be happy to. However, that trusty funny feeling in the gut is
suggesting that while deliberating the contents and phrasing, this
should be done either by direct email or on a list that isn't
world readable and archived. Not so that we can do any funny
stuff, but so that mid-deliberation stuff doesn't get taken
out of context. I don't see any way that the comments could be
of later value (we can keep an archive and make extracts to show the
reasoning), but they could create a later mess. Or fuel unnecessary
flame wars.
> Really, this is an annoying loose end that will only grow worse. In
> practice, anyone who contributes a patch to LyX has "veto power" on
> license, copyright, and other changes only so long as they're
> semi-active members of the develpment team. It is assumed that anyone
> who abandons their corner of the code "bequeaths" it to the team. In
> principle, certain GPL-fundamentalist nutcases who shall remain
> nameless [Debian] go stomping around claiming we put LyX under a
> license that makes it illegal for anyone to ever run LyX and other
> such horseshit. To shut them up, I'd like to stuff a sock down their
> throats. However, others on the team would prefer not to resort to
> violence. ;) Performing the admittedly long and tedious task is our
> only alternative.
Agreed. I figure that what we'd want in permissions is,
a) ability to switch to any license that requires keeping the source
itself free (or should bsdish be ok? Look what netbsd got back from
apple).
b) the core developers should be able to issue exceptions--who knows
what licenses with odd compatibility problems will pop up in the
future.
c) the artistic license looked good, but i only gave it a once-thru.
d) there's also my off-the-cuff "raptor" license from a couple of
months ago.
> We need to do it at some point. Why not now, during the shakedown/bug
> reporting period of 1.0?
--
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:48:39 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 16739 invoked by uid 514); 2 Feb 1999 19:43:28 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 2228
Received: (qmail 16729 invoked from network); 2 Feb 1999 19:43:27 -0000
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 (debian)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ahh, nuts: forgot a paragraph in clarification
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 13:47:40 -0600
From: "Richard E. Hawkins Esq." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 527
Lines: 17
In addition to moving the GPL, we need the following paragraph added,
and the current 5) renamed 6) :
5) The right to publish revised versions of the license in paragraph
9. of the GPL is held by the LyX development team.
Lacking this could lead to disastrous interpretations: GNU has the
right to change our license to handle new situations, and we don't,
leaving us stuck with a variant of the current version, and unable to
change this. (This interpreation isn't correct, but could lead to
headaches).
--
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:46:22 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 18309 invoked by uid 514); 2 Feb 1999 21:41:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 2234
Received: (qmail 18299 invoked from network); 2 Feb 1999 21:41:18 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on IRIX
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 15:33:31 -0600 (CST)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Center for Computational Mechanics,
Washington University, St. Louis
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Roland Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LyX-devels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: the dreaded license could be good for something...
Status: RO
Content-Length: 649
Lines: 18
Devys, Rick,
I have read through the LyX license again.
If you and the other developers are up for some real big publicity,
here is a proposal what to do in order to get a flamewar on slashdot
started.
Someone post this to Rob Malda under the subject:
LyX license clearifies legal gibberish of GPL version 2.
Maybe this is just going to far... I am really in doubt.
I mean, instead looking at the tremendous piece of software you guys
put together, the focus would be on the license...
Roland Krause
Visiting Research Associate - Center for Computational Mechanics
Washington University, Saint Louis
Roland Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 01:12:04 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 23871 invoked by uid 514); 3 Feb 1999 07:07:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 2249
Received: (qmail 23861 invoked from network); 3 Feb 1999 07:07:25 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 02:00:12 -0500
From: John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LyX-devels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the dreaded license could be good for something...
Mail-Followup-To: LyX-devels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.2
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from Roland Krause on Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at
03:33:31PM -0600
Status: RO
Content-Length: 453
Lines: 15
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 03:33:31PM -0600, Roland Krause wrote:
> Devys, Rick,
> I have read through the LyX license again.
> If you and the other developers are up for some real big publicity,
> here is a proposal what to do in order to get a flamewar on slashdot
> started.
>
> Someone post this to Rob Malda under the subject:
>
> LyX license clearifies legal gibberish of GPL version 2.
Would he be the slashdot muttonhead? :)
--
John Weiss
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 04:52:32 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 26760 invoked by uid 514); 3 Feb 1999 10:47:40 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 2255
Received: (qmail 26750 invoked from network); 3 Feb 1999 10:47:39 -0000
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:39:01 +0000 (GMT)
From: Reuben Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LyX Developers list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: License
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1479
Lines: 37
There's a problem here in version 1.0.0. Two main problems in fact:
1. The COPYING file is now *extremely* confusing. "Patching" the GNU
license means that LyX is now distributed under an unfamiliar license, and
one of dubious value.
2. The "Copyright and Warranty" box in the program just says that LyX is
distributed under the GPL. This directly contradicts the main COPYING
file.
Since I understand that a bug in the Insert->URL command is likely to mean
an update sooner rather than later, perhaps you could take the opportunity
to sort out the COPYING problem too. Personally, I'd much rather that LyX
was simply released under the GPL, but if you're determined to change the
license, then you should:
1. Edit the GPL to your satisfaction.
2. Rename it (after all, changing the GPL is not allowed; however, it
doesn't say you can't change it provided you call it something else).
Now you just have one consistent COPYING file, hopefully.
Finally,
3. Check that the extracts from the file in the Copyright and Warranty box
match the COPYING file, and in particular, say "distributed under the
license in the file COPYING that came with the program" rather than "under
the GPL".
>From the various nastinesses in the above, you can see why I'd rather you
just used the GPL, warts and all. Having read the GPL carefully, I don't
see that the fact that xforms is not open source is any problem.
--
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rrt1001/ | maxim, n. wisdom for fools
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (really [141.225.11.87]) by
eyry.econ.iastate.edu
via in.smtpd with smtp
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.101)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 18:23:27 -0600 (EST)
Received: (qmail 11613 invoked by uid 514); 6 Mar 1999 00:32:55 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-num: 3435
Received: (qmail 11603 invoked from network); 6 Mar 1999 00:32:54 -0000
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 (debian)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Hah! a hacked up letterhead
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 17:54:22 -0600
From: "Richard E. Hawkins Esq." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 19694
Lines: 334
After wasitng half a day, this letterhead works. It's almost ready to
be included, but needs a couple of details.
a) I need to figure out how to query a box for it's height & width.
Until then, this is an ugy hack.
b) The printer I used is vertically misaligned, so this prints low on
the page. There's an lradjust (yeah, that's off too.), but I need to
know how to query boxes for the up/down adjust to work.
c) I don't think there's a way around this. I have to play with
textheight. It is initially set to make the first page work, and it
executes a command in the firstpage headr to make later commands work.
rick
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 03 08:47:18 2002
Delivery-Date: Mon Jul 2 14:04:58 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from localhost (localhost.ds.psu.edu [127.0.0.1])
by fac13.ds.psu.edu (8.11.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f62I4wi12918
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:04:58 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Received: from email.psu.edu [146.186.157.10]
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.8.6)
for [EMAIL PROTECTED] (single-drop); Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:04:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from f05n13.cac.psu.edu (r02a04.cac.psu.edu [146.186.15.14])
by f07n05.cac.psu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23468
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:57:17 -0400
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by f05n13.cac.psu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA90678
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:56:48 -0400
Received: from wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu (IDENT:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [141.225.11.87])
by f05n13.cac.psu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA145886
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:56:47 -0400
Received: (qmail 7760 invoked by uid 514); 2 Jul 2001 17:56:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 7750 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2001 17:56:17 -0000
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4
X-PH: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: qt/license issues
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:37:06 +0200."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 13:55:41 -0400
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1551
Lines: 35
I think we already have the license issues covered. Lyx is Quasi-GPL,
not GPL. The actions taken in releasing and inviting to distribute
binaries while having the xforms dependencies was inconsistent with the
GPL wording, thus the actions governed. When I saw the kde/gnu/debian
religious wars, I brought this up, pointed out how the law worked, and
wrote the license clarification that now ships.
As written, it is clauses of the GPL that are rejected, so the
rejection would carry forward to other libraries.
Its those initial actions, predating what I wrote, that determine what
we can and cannot do, and what the license is. It might be arguaable
that only xforms gets the exemption; I'll mull this over. My initial
reaction, though, is that the offending GPL clauses are inert in their
entirety--otherwise, the project would be locked into a specific
version of xforms rather than its updates, which is a nonsensical
result. Since updated versions of xforms may be used, I'd be inclined
to believe that any substitute to xforms may also be used (again, I'll
mull this over a bit.).
As a practical note, I think it would be *very* difficult to find
anyone who would have the legal standing to object to the use of qt . .
.
hawk
