Branden,
> Whew! I apologize again for the stupidly long delay. Thank you again
> for your boundless patience.
thank you (even though as you state later than we all hoped), your comments
look as valuable as the first set
frank
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Argh, I gotta stop here (legalese fatigue, and yes, I know I do more
> than my share of causing it in others). I will follow-up soon with my
> comments on the remaining two major sections.
>
> I hope you find the above analysis useful.
>
most likely from brief scannin
comments for wordings. I intend
to make the license change status by next month since then there will be a new
release of LaTeX.
> Thanks a lot; I greatly appreciate your patience and that of Frank
> Mittelbach and numerous others in the LaTeX Project.
well, it wasn't that easy --- p
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Sure, that's fine. But the LPPL people might not like it, given their
> weirdness.
thanks a lot, if we are back to abuse then I guess that's about time to stop
happy easter to those who accept it from a weirdo but perhaps that makes it
suspicious
frank
Walter Landry writes:
> 5a1 is not a free alternative. 5a2 approaches that, but it has to
> cover _every_ occasion where 5a1 fails, not just most of them.
I don't think it is acceptable that you take a list of "or"s, judge each of
them individually and conclude that each of them is not 100% the
Walter Landry writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that above we also addressed the concern by (I think Walter)
> > concerning 5a2 so that it now only requires run-time identification
> > if the original used runtime identification
>
Branden Robinson writes:
> > > Are you gravely opposed to external changelogs, as might be generated
> > > by, say, cvs2cl -- even if those changelogs have to be distributed along
> > > with the modified files of the Derived Work?
> >
> > yes, we are. This is not how the LaTeX world works
Branden Robinson writes:
> > > > c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
> > > > addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
> > > > Maintainer's addresses in any way.
> > >
> > > This is somewhat new ground for a DFSG-free license
Branden Robinson writes:
> > > > c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
> > > > addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
> > > > Maintainer's addresses in any way.
> > >
> > > This is somewhat new ground for a DFSG-free license. Is
Frank Mittelbach writes:
> we think it is neither of users nor of people actively supporting (read:
> user support) and maintaining a large software system, that modification is
> done without minimal preparation for a potential distribution (because
ooops. what was that? i meant
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:14:55PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > 5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify
> > your copy of The Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on The Work,
> > as long as the followi
I think i answered about all of the points raised a minute ago
Jeff Licquia writes:
> > Does "This is LaTeX-format, unmodified" followed a few lines later by
> > "this is foo, modified by someguy" qualify? As written, I'd think this
> > infringes.
>
> I would say this doesn't (or should
Walter Landry writes in reply to Mark Rafn:
> > On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >
> > > - 5.a.2. That's the Clause of Contention, so read it carefully. I
> > > seem to have at least some consensus on it, judging from the feedback so
> > > far; its provenance can be seen in this
Jeff Licquia writes:
> Let me try to improve on Branden's version, phrased a little differently
> so it becomes a new 5.a.2:
>
> "The entire Derived Work, including the Base Format, does not identify
> itself as the original, unmodified Work to the user in any way when
> run."
>
> This w
Branden Robinson writes:
> Mandating technologies in license documents really rubs me the wrong
> way.
I'm not too happy about it either, but ...
> The nice(?) thing about legal language is that you can use broad
> terms to say what you mean, and as long as your meaning is clear and
> una
Walter Landry writes:
> Actually, this is a good reason for someone to use the standard
> facility, not for the license to require the standard facility. All
> that you really care about is that the information gets to the user,
> not how it gets to them.
yes and no. we care that the informa
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > > > i don't think the wording is good, but that aside, would that lift
> > your
> > > > concern?
> > >
> > > I'd prefer just saying that the documentation must make clear what the
> > > provenance is.
>
> The problem is still one of context.
>
> I
Jeremy Hankins writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Jeremy Hankins writes:
>
> > > Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous
> > > to linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined, derived work)?
>
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > for the sake of an argument, what about
> >
> > 1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
> > that it isn't the original package
>
Jeremy Hankins writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > you can, of course, combine/run GPL packages with the base format
> > LaTeX-Format, there are a packages of packages licenced in this way
>
> Hrm. So using a package file with La
Jeremy Hankins writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> Except that you can't make GPL code validate with the LPPL
> >>> validator, since the GPL and LPPL are not compa
Mark Rafn writes:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > AFAIU, what the authors of the LPPL draft is trying to express is
> > nothing more or less than
> >
> > 1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
> > that it isn't Standard LaTeX.
>
>
Walter Landry writes:
>
> > > > This example seems to indicate that your main problem with the
> > > > validator is that it seems like a programmatic restriction. If it
> > > > were made more clear that this is not the case, would this satisfy
> > > > you? How would you change it?
> > >
Frank Mittelbach writes:
> for the sake of an argument, what about
>
> 1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
> that it isn't the original package
>
> 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be
Barak Pearlmutter writes:
> > > Something like this:
> > >
> > > You must not cause files to misrepresent themselves as approved by
> > > the official LaTeX maintenance group, or to misrepresent
> > > themselves as perfectly compatible with such files (according to
> > > comp
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
> > that it isn't Standard LaTeX.
> >
> > 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be
> > used provid
Jeremy Hankins writes:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Except that you can't make GPL code validate with the LPPL validator,
> > since the GPL and LPPL are not compatible. So, since there's no danger
> > that the code will be run through the validator and identify itself as
Joe Moore writes:
> And also, the "any derived work" language might be seen as an attempt to
> restrict the licensing preferences of derivative works. For example, if
> someone would prefer to license their modifications under a strong
> copyleft license, clause 10 above would seem to suggest
> I've CC'ed this to a LaTeX person - any comments from the LaTeX crowd?
just for the record, i'm in fact subscribed to -legal since last year, just as
Henning suspect, it is just that most of you go to sleep when I wake up an
vice versa, have to get the kids to bed and then rejoin
frank
Jeff Licquia writes in reply to Joe Moore:
> On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 13:45, Joe Moore wrote:
> > > 10. The Work, or any Derived Work, may be distributed under a
> > > different license, as long as that license honors the conditions in
> > > Clause 7a, above.
> >
> > This clause confuses me.
Walter Landry writes:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This example seems to indicate that your main problem with the
> > validator is that it seems like a programmatic restriction. If it
> > were made more clear that this is not the case, would this satisfy
> > you? How would
sorry for joining late, but i was away without email access, as a result it is
a bit difficult to join in without possibly overlooking arguments already
presented, sorry if that is going to happen
Mark Rafn writes:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > That's basically the idea. *If*
Alan Shutko writes:
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I afraid you are in state of denial. You have certain ideas about
> > programmer's freedom. You value these ideas too much, you just cannot
> > accept the fact that Knuth does not share them.
>
> I doubt it's that. I t
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ > more ~/tex.web
> > % This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are
> > reserved.
> > % Copying of this file is authorized
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm talking of requiring that the work identifies itself by name via
> > interface to other works (something that could be checked by a
> > computer)
>
> What I wan
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > the problem with Don's work is, that you have to make assumptions or raise
> > opinions on what he means. but assuming he clarifies or you pick an
> > interpretation it th
Branden Robinson writes:
> > and only acceptable if it can't be checked by a computer as being the
> > original.
>
> It would be trivially easy to circumvent computer checks. What about
> case-sensitivity? Can I trust a computer to catch ALL of the following
> uses of "TeX"?
I'm talking
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 07:37:22PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > really, what is behind all this aren't file names but works (plural), and
> > each
> > of such works is supposed not to claim itself as the original (to other
>
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:23:31PM -0400, Itai Zukerman wrote:
> > >> What're your plans for tonight?
> > >
> > > Watch one of the 6 DVDs I got in the mail, or some of the many dragon
> > > ball
> > > Zs I probably have on Tivo, go to your place, watch class, go ou
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:59:56PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > but Don hasn't put his work out as a whole with a license
>
> Then to what, exactly, do his statements in comp.text.tex on Wed, 23 Feb
> 1994 03:34:01 GMT apply?
>
&g
Branden Robinson writes:
> Perhaps it strains your credulity, but that's all Debian really
> requires. Such statements from a copyright holder are a license, every
no it does not. but as there are interpretative statements around (by Don) as
well as copyright notices on individual files and cop
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 11:04:56AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > I cannot claim to understand *all* intricacies of Don's great brain,
> > but I always understood his intentions with respect to TeX and friends
> > in the following way:
> >
> > 1. As a true CS pro
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 11:47:59AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > It did however happen, several times by individuals and that was all I was
> > referring to. Perhaps you missed those posts which wouldn't be surprising
> > given the nu
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 12:01:09PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > Even here on the list I noted that several people (which I presume to to
> > be
> > debian-legal regulars) used "public domain" in different senses.
>
&g
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:34:43AM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
> >I have put these systems into the public domain so that people
> >everywhere can use the ideas freely if they wish.
> [...]
> >As stated on the copyright pages of Volumes~B, D, and~E,
> >
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:54:37AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > However I think it would be a poor solution to argue legally that you
> > are able to ignore Don's explicit wishes simply because he is a
> > Computer Scientist rather th
C.M. Connelly writes:
> I read this statement as saying that anyone can do anything they
> want with the code in the .web files, so long as they don't call
> the resulting systems/fonts TeX, METAFONT, or Computer Modern.
Knuth is unfortunately (or fortunately if you go by the legal content only
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That is the situuation we are in here. LPPL has proved popular.There are
> > hundreds (jillions) of independently distributed packages using the
> > same licence. If you decide it is OK for the first of these to h
Henning Makholm writes:
> > As I said earlier, I guess we could be persuaded to provide two
> > kernels within LaTeX distribution, one as it is now, and one with
> > the remapping feature already available. If that kernel would be
> > used then you would perhaps get
>
> I'm not keen about
Lars Hellström writes:
> There's no technical need to modify the kernel to do 2 or 3. You can load
> the format, redefine the "register" call, and then \input the document you
> want to typeset from the ** prompt. A \ProvidingTeXFormat command for doing
> 2 would be fairly simple.
>
> I wond
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I must confess that i havea bit of a problem to understand the exchange
> > between you and Henning, but could you please be more precise about
> >
> > - which freed
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would suggest for (nearly) all typesetting systems to use a license like
> > LPPL, simply because (nearly) all of them have as one of their purposes the
> > goal to
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Not perfectly but more or less it does. First of all, true
> > compatibility backward and forward can only be achived by no change
> > at all, even adding only features wo
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Henning,
>
> > My intention is and was to point out that while it was several times
> > expressed that the user is on your mind as well as the developer my
> > impression is tha
Brian Sniffen writes:
> >>>>> On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:59:23 +0200, Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL
> >>>>> PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The point is that by distributing it under LPPL it will be the same
> > everywhere (or not on the installation)
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 17:32, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > However, when I modify the name of size12.clo I need to make sure that
> > > article.cls can find my modified file. For example, article.cls
> > > contain
Jeff Licquia writes:
> On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 10:34, Brian Sniffen wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > Those who care primarily about the freeness of software, or who wish
> > to take a macro language apart and put it together again, would use
> > FreeLaTeX. Debian could distribute FreeLaTeX in its m
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > You're missing the point. The LaTeX people certainly do know that
> > > > there are *some* places
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 11:58:46AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > The "option 3" you propose would entail that two directory trees
> > > existed, one which is the original LaTeX, and one where the kernel is
> > > modified and renames but the rest of the files (say,
Walter Landry writes:
> percolated up to the top. Isn't this stability what the LaTeX people
> want? They put their stamp on a set of packages and call it good.
it seems that I'm unable to explain the situation properly since this type of
misunderstanding shows up over and over again
Ther
I'm just got back online and found 100 messages or so. I will come to the
thread "Concluding the LPPL debate, try 2" at some point, but some of the
mails I read contain some misunderstanding that I think needs clearing up as
well (as they might help to come to a conclusion on the above thread) ...
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Why? If a file is outside the LaTeX search path, there is no reason to
> > keep it frozen. Actually the current LPPL explicitly gives you the
> > right to change a lice
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Henning Makholm writes:
>
> > > Would you consider the second of these options acceptable?
>
> > who is the you in your question?
>
> Good question. The "you&quo
Henning,
> > In other words, I challenge you that in this case you don't live up to your
> > social contract in particular to #4 of it. I.e. you are not guided be the
> > needs of your user _and_ the free-software community but guided only by one
> > singular interpretation of what is free-so
Henning Makholm writes:
> Would you consider the second of these options acceptable?
who is the you in your question?
frank
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boris Veytsman writes:
> > Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:53:23 +0200
> > From: Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > So it is NOT me or David or anybody else from The LaTeX Team that controls
> > an
> > this: the terms of LPPL c
David Turner writes:
> OK, how about the following:
>
> As a special exception to the section titled CONDITIONS ON DISTRIBUTION
> AND MODIFICATION ("Section 57"), you may modify the Program by
> processing them with automated translation and compilation tools
> ("Tools") to generate derivati
Jeff Licquia writes:
> On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 14:56, Walter Landry wrote:
> > So let me get this straight. Pristine LaTeX would have, within it, a
> > mechanism for checking whether a particular file is "blessed" by the
> > LaTeX project. Ideally, it could check digital signatures. md5sums
>
Mark and others,
> > We already allow for the concept that programs may not be allowed to
> > "lie" about their origin in that they may be required to have a
> > different name.
>
> A different name to humans. A different package name, sure. In some
> cases, a different executable name (T
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 02:24:13AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > remember LPPL is not the license for the LaTeX kernel it is a
> > > license being applied these days to several hundreds of indepeneded
> > > works (individually!).
> >
> > Oops. Is the kernel unde
David Turner writes:
> I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
> think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
> speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
> decisions yet.
hmmm, perhaps not, but Richard Stallman
sorry pressed C-c C-c in the wrong window ... try again
Jeff Licquia writes:
> > sorry, but we are not concerned only with the core stuff. even though we
> > don't
> > distribute the rest. The whole set of files put on ctan and identical (on a
> > pristine LaTeX installation) is what makes La
Jeff Licquia writes:
> On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 13:20, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia writes:
> > > > The LaTeX Project is not collecting a bunch of seperate works and
> > combines
> > > > them into LaTeX. It only provides 3 or 4
Glenn Maynard writes:
> If I remove any given features from a BSD-licensed program, it remains
> free.
but the same would be true for the LPPL as proposed to be rewritten by me with
the help of Jeff and others.
I repeat the essential point is that requirement to be able to apply LPPL
would be w
Branden,
thank you very much for that detailed set of comments.
> Sure. Before getting to your hypotheticals, I'll try and give you a
> direct, if generalized, answer.
>
> A license must be tested against DFSG 4 when either of the following are
> true:
>
> A) the license places restric
Richard Braakman writes:
> Hmm, I thought of a perhaps more practical example that also illustrates
> my desire for transitive closure. What if you take a piece of code from
> an LPPL'ed work and use it in another project? This other project might
> lack any facility for remappping filenames
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > It sounds like you might have to talk to Branden and maybe Henning as
> > well. I'm not sure about Mark Rafn and Glenn Maynard. Thomas
> > Bushnell, Sam Hartman, and Colin Watson seem to be with you. T
Jeremy Hankins writes:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > OK. Now I'd like to hear the Debian side. Here are the conditions for
> > modification that are being proposed as I understand them:
> >
> > - you must rename all modified files, or
> >
> > - you must rename the wh
Jeff Licquia writes:
> > The LaTeX Project is not collecting a bunch of seperate works and combines
> > them into LaTeX. It only provides 3 or 4 core parts of what is known to be
> > LaTeX as well as providing a license (LPPL) which helps to keep that thing
> > "LaTeX" uniform between different
Glenn Maynard writes:
> I've split this off, since I don't think mixing the LaTeX and (Te)TeX
> licensing problems is a good idea.
they are related but you are right this is a separate issue and should be
discussed separately.
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
>
Jeff Licquia writes:
> If each piece of the work had to be downloaded separately, then this
> would be a valid way of thinking. When the LaTeX Project collects a
> bunch of these separate works and combines them into "LaTeX", though,
> they create a derived work, with its own licensing requir
> You might be interested in Thomas's followup:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00407.html
sure i am. but at the same time I just saw the reply by Walter
message number perhaps
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00431.html
Jeff,
> > I am afraid you do not know about the recent history of gcc.
> >
> > [...]
>
> We, as a project, understand this perhaps better than you do. We
> currently ship three different C compilers for woody: 2.95 in most
> cases, 2.96 for certain architectures, and 3.0 for one archite
David + Jeff
> > The problem is that I do not believe that the security model of TeX and
> > the security model of LaTeX are absolutely equivalent. They may be
> > close, but "close" doesn't cut it in the security world.
>
> I don't think they are close. I assert they are the same as latex
Folks,
it seems to me that by now we are turning around in cycles rehashing arguments
that are important in general (can LaTeX have security problems, yes or no?;
how does one do software development ...) but not with respect to the problem
at hand which still is (to me at least) the following two
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > for that hypothetical license Jeff was talking about I wouldn't
> > know, but even that wouldn't be a problem as you could load your new
> > makefile with -f. it woul
>> It's not expressly forbidden or expressly allowed, so we have to figure
>> out if it's OK or not. As I mentioned, it doesn't seem onerous as a
>> requirement; just an mv/cp and a few Makefile edits.
>
>Would you not need to rename the Makefile too if you edit it?
for that hypothetical license
Javier Bezos writes:
>
> > Freedom includes the right to do things that you (and even I) think
> > are stupid. Debian stands for freedom.
>
> And lppl is intended to give you the right to do stupid things (yes
> you can do them), but without perjudicing the right of all latex
> users to h
Mark Rafn writes:
> Thanks Boris and Frank for explanations of how some forks could be made.
> It's a delightful edge case for us, and gives Debian a chance to reflect
> on where the lines are and just how much liberty is required in order to
> be "free enough".
delightful? not really whe
Henning Makholm writes:
> > [example of the complex way removed]
>
> I thought I argued in quite a level of detail why it is the *only* way
> that is allowed by the renaming rule. If you think my arguments are
> wrong, could you please explain why in more detail than just
> dismissing them a
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Henning Makholm writes:
>
> > > I'm sure it will be possible to find a way to *allow* a reasonably
> > > painless fork without actually encouraging it.
>
> >
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > probably none (definitely not for the 72 individual font names.
> > Nevertheless
> > Debian wouldn't get a good press if it would generate modified versions of
> > suc
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > i think so yes, for example, Don's home page
> > other may be able to refer you to more explicit quotes.
>
> Knuth's home page is large. Do you have a specific refe
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:29:36AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
>
> > > Indeed, I can do two things:
>
> > > Make a derivate work of latex, which is variant, and called
> > > "s
Branden & Bill
> > P.S. Just because present LPPL might not conform to DFSG does not
> > mean that LaTeX is not free.
true Bill, but irrelevent in this discussion as Branden correctly points out
below
> The LaTeX Project is at liberty to represent the LPPL as a "free"
> license to whoever i
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> >From tripman.tex:
>
> If somebody claims to have a correct implementation of \TeX, I will not
> believe it until I see that \.{TRIP.TEX} is translated properly.
> I propose, in fact, that a program must meet two criteria before it
> can justifiably be
Walter Landry writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - to get support from the kernel for a new package you have to fork the
> >kernel
> > - when modifying all future names pile up as being unchangeable
> >
> > all of them w
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:15:42AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > i have heard that statement before, but to me it doesn't follow from DSFG 4
> > and others (regulars on this list I presume) have in my understanding also
> > expressed t
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >B. The *name* TeX is reserved for Knuth's program. If you program
> >is called TeX, it must satisfy triptest. You can NOT correct bugs
> >in this program, you cannot do Debian QA for it -- you either ta
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > LaTeX is a document markup language the primary aim is to have
> > portable documents. Thus anything that claims to be latex (or tex, or
> > the computer modern fonts) should produce the same output.
>
> But yo
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
