RE: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
-Original Message- From: Frank Mittelbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 April 2003 19:22 To: Jeff Licquia Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL) 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 would be accompanied by a section under WHETHER AND HOW TO DISTRIBUTE WORKS UNDER THIS LICENSE talking about ways to ensure that derived works can adhere to 5.a.2. I'd really like to hear Frank or David's thoughts on this new wording, since we're moving into some different territory here. What do you think? as I said in the other mail, I think that would be something I think would do what is necessary and we could give suggestions elsewhere how to fullfil 5.a.2. Guess i need to think a little bit more about it to be sure, but it seems likely. Would be fine if it does. frank I agree with Frank that this looks like something that could form the basis of an agreed wording. David
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 17:09, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:39:44AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: Right, but as I just posted a little bit ago, a restriction to a problem domain is just one type of specificity. See the GPL, section 2c, for another, one that I think is appropriate. Note that 2c is not terribly popular among some people on this list. The popularity of this entire license isn't going to be high among anyone on this list, I expect. -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote: [Branden] Why not say something like: If you distribute modified copies of the work, you must ensure that its modified status is clearly, unambiguously, and obviously communicated to users of the work.? IMO, this is non-free without the GPL's permission to ignore this in non-interactive use. Also, your proposal goes WAY further than requiring a notice that a user could see if she is interested, it requires that the user is prevented from suppressing it. I definitely agree with the direction though - license requirements should be non-technical in nature. 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 would be accompanied by a section under WHETHER AND HOW TO DISTRIBUTE WORKS UNDER THIS LICENSE talking about ways to ensure that derived works can adhere to 5.a.2. I'd really like to hear Frank or David's thoughts on this new wording, since we're moving into some different territory here. What do you think? -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Scripsit Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Perhaps it would help if we step back a bit and try to look at the problem that the clause is supposed to solve. In my understanding it is the following: What the LaTeX people would ideally want is something like 5.a.2. The modified Program must, when started for running in the most ordinary way, to make a good-faith attempt to cause a prominent message to be shown to the human user (if such a user exists), warning that it is not the Standard Version of the program. I think something like this could be accepted by d-l, assuming that we could find a workable compromise between generality and clarity in the wording of the good-faith attempt stuff. The reason why this would not work is that the best attempt an average TeX hacker could probably work out would be to use the \message or \write16 primitive to inject a message into the TeX interpreter's stdout. There would be every risk that the message would drown in the avalanche of routine progress messages that LaTeX traditionally produces while running, thus never actually catching the user's attention. That would (afaiu) be unacceptable from the LaTeX people's point of view. Perhaps, instead of specifying that a certain good method *must* be used, the license simply ought to specify that the obvious but insuficient method is not enough. Here is a (ugly and sketchy) attempt at some language: 5.a.2. The modified Program must, when started for running in the most ordinary way, to make a good-faith attempt to cause a prominent message to be shown to the human user (if such a user exists), warning that it is not the Standard Version of the program. If the modified Program is intended to be used with the Standard LaTeX format, then a message displayed by \message or a similar TeX primitive when the Program is loaded shall not be considered prominent for the purpose of interpreing this clause. The Standard LaTeX format contains a facility for displaying messages to the terminal in a way that is considered prominent. -- Henning MakholmDetta, sade de, vore rena sanningen; ty de kunde tala sanning lika väl som någon annan, när de bara visste vad det tjänade til.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 unambiguous, the people are affected by it. folks, all I see so far is that your broad terms do not take into account our main concern, but only your concerns about how you view the world. That is fine, but it doesn't bring us much further. At least some of you will hopefully acknowledge that I tried and try very hard to fullfil your concerns while maintaing ours. If you are prepared to think about how broad legal terms can unambiguous prevent our concern of becoming a reality then I'm all for not being too specific in places. Otherwise I can only say that the earlier draft had a very simple clear and legal term (if you change it change its name) that the majority (I wont dare to speak for everybody) of the LaTeX community was and is happy with. By being as specific as you are, I think you're making it *more* likely, not less, than someone will find and exploit a loophole in your carefully constructed license document. that is a danger, I agree, and again it would be nice if you can suggest a phrasing that is clear and unambiguous, but I don't see that this Why not say something like: If you distribute modified copies of the work, you must ensure that its modified status is clearly, unambiguously, and obviously communicated to users of the work.? actually fulfills this goal. At least not as long unambiguously, and obviously is not further qualified. I'm sure there are people claiming that the above will clearly allow to put a comment somewhere (for example at the top of some file), saying that the file is modified, but that is (the way LaTeX works) anything else than obvious and unambiguous as it will mean that the user is required to wade through literally thousands of files to find out if some of them has changed. They expect that if they see Package: FOO 2003/04/08 v1.6c FOO formatting (FMi) on two installations then this will provide the same code. Furthermore right now they expect that if they see You have requested package `FOO', but the package provides `FOO-new'. that they have then and only then run their document through a system that provides a modified version of the original work FOO. any modification that slips in a FOO variant into their setup without giving them such a warning would be something considered an attempt to fool people rather than provide them with a corrected/better/or-whatever-it-was-done-for package. [[this is the current situation, assuming an LPPL license that is not requiring a fixed facility / or name change that expectation would probably change to expeciting to get a clear information that something is modified]] There. The burden's on them, not you. If they get too clever and sneaky, this clause is there to catch them and make them liable to you for copyright infringement. The easiest way for them to comply with this requirement is with your suggestion (2) above. Otherwise, they'd better do (1). But saying what you want instead of how exactly you want it done is, I think, a superior approach. yes it is, but only if you have a suggestion that is clearly avoiding the danger that a noticable number of people are likely to argue that all that is needed is a static comment in the source file. If you have any suggestion for this then I guess i would be with you. just a minute ago your long mail on modification notification requirements came in and i have to read that in some more detail. At first glance I believe that it is exactly (3) we are doing the license for and in some sense it is due to that that we feel clear and ambiguous needs to be more than a statement you proposed above. Having just looked at Jeff's reply to you, I think his last suggestion would be closer to achiving what we want, without having to phrase it in a way that would be a restriction in technology or requiring a name change so with something along those lines I guess we could avoid technological restrictions or requirements and in fact make the license better as you pointed out. frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 would be accompanied by a section under WHETHER AND HOW TO DISTRIBUTE WORKS UNDER THIS LICENSE talking about ways to ensure that derived works can adhere to 5.a.2. I'd really like to hear Frank or David's thoughts on this new wording, since we're moving into some different territory here. What do you think? as I said in the other mail, I think that would be something I think would do what is necessary and we could give suggestions elsewhere how to fullfil 5.a.2. Guess i need to think a little bit more about it to be sure, but it seems likely. Would be fine if it does. frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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. If there is some other program which reads what is output to the screen and its behavior changes, then it must be possible and legal to fake that output to the screen to fake out that other program. how is that supposed to work with GPL 2c? i presume your argument is that the case you describe is one of non-interactive use. but the 5a2 only describes the case of interactive use with one specified base format not its behaviour with any odd program. so it only covers what should happen if used with, e.g., the LaTeX-format. it does not specify what should happen if you feed the package into a perl interpreter to count backslashes or what have you so the context is not arbitrary but specifed by the license and the clause is restricted to that context. frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 information gets to the user but we also care that it gets to the user in an expected way. I grant you that there might be more freedom than requiring a certain facility to be used. but what we do not accept, for example, is the idea that the user has to manually look through source files to find individual comments that may be hidden anywhere in literally several thousand files. you may have read or listen to Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy: there is this nice scene near the beginning in which the earth men are told that it is their fault not to have looked on Alpha Centaurus where the plans have been on display for the last 50 years --- we are strongly opposed to a solution that could result in something similar for LaTeX. And we don't like to have to fight over X is visible/non-visible enough for the user and therefore want some clear ground rules (restricted to the use in a specified context). frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:59:07PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: I don't think that it is prohibitively complicated. I think it is impossible. The LaTeX people can't live with a free license. There is too little control. This conclusion seems hasty. -- G. Branden Robinson| The key to being a Southern Debian GNU/Linux | Baptist: It ain't a sin if you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't get caught. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Anthony Davidson pgpdnJ3wAL4N8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 01:55:44PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote: well, I tried to give a rewrite in the other post (which can surely be improved) --- but it is certainly something that is passed through the program to reach the user, but this is also true for, say, GPL 2c. Just FYI, but the wording of GPL 2c has come under critique on this mailing list before. While it is true that the GNU GPL has many fans on this list, and that people on this list frequently recommend it because it is well-understood, the GPL is not regarded with unthinking adulation. Therefore, I would not invest too much hope that likening a license to the GPL is going to, in and of itself, grease the skids for license's interpretation as DFSG-free by this mailing list. To see what I'm talking about, you will unfortunately have to wade through a *gigantic* thread about the license of a piece software called PHPNuke. Nevertheless, here's a message picked out of that thread at random: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00181.html -- G. Branden Robinson|Religion is regarded by the common Debian GNU/Linux |people as true, by the wise as [EMAIL PROTECTED] |false, and by the rulers as useful. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca pgpNna9b0Eqli.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:39:44AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: Right, but as I just posted a little bit ago, a restriction to a problem domain is just one type of specificity. See the GPL, section 2c, for another, one that I think is appropriate. Note that 2c is not terribly popular among some people on this list. -- G. Branden Robinson| There is no gravity in space. Debian GNU/Linux | Then how could astronauts walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | around on the Moon? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Because they wore heavy boots. pgpX3hvjpvtQg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 12:01:20PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: The DFSG will accept a ban on making false claims of authorship to humans, but not a ban on making such false claims to a program. Yes; exactly my understanding of freedom to modify. -- G. Branden Robinson|It may be difficult to to determine Debian GNU/Linux |where religious beliefs end and [EMAIL PROTECTED] |mental illness begins. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Elaine Cassel pgp5fYlt8rdJ3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 09:11:34AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: 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. Would it be possible to use GPL wording for this? The ability NOT to do this when written for non-interactive use is important. Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording *should* be. See the PHPNuke thread. 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages to the screen, you must use that. I'll need more thought about this. A requirement to use a specified facility seems unfree to me at first sniff, but I could (yet again) be reading too much into it. This seems to be mandating the usage of programmatic interface, which conflicts with my understanding of freedom to modify. -- G. Branden Robinson|Any man who does not realize that Debian GNU/Linux |he is half an animal is only half a [EMAIL PROTECTED] |man. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Thornton Wilder pgpeOxp0jhKhG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 information gets to the user but we also care that it gets to the user in an expected way. I grant you that there might be more freedom than requiring a certain facility to be used. but what we do not accept, for example, is the idea that the user has to manually look through source files to find individual comments that may be hidden anywhere in literally several thousand files. you may have read or listen to Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy: there is this nice scene near the beginning in which the earth men are told that it is their fault not to have looked on Alpha Centaurus where the plans have been on display for the last 50 years --- we are strongly opposed to a solution that could result in something similar for LaTeX. And we don't like to have to fight over X is visible/non-visible enough for the user and therefore want some clear ground rules (restricted to the use in a specified context). Are you saying that if someone comes up with a technically superior method of informing the user of the modified status of the package (e.g. a telepathic notifier), a modifier still has to use the on-screen method? Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:08:37PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote: 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 used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages without making any other processing changes, you must use that. i don't think the wording is good, but that aside, would that lift your concern? Mandating technologies in license documents really rubs me the wrong way. 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 unambiguous, the people are affected by it. By being as specific as you are, I think you're making it *more* likely, not less, than someone will find and exploit a loophole in your carefully constructed license document. Why not say something like: If you distribute modified copies of the work, you must ensure that its modified status is clearly, unambiguously, and obviously communicated to users of the work.? There. The burden's on them, not you. If they get too clever and sneaky, this clause is there to catch them and make them liable to you for copyright infringement. The easiest way for them to comply with this requirement is with your suggestion (2) above. Otherwise, they'd better do (1). But saying what you want instead of how exactly you want it done is, I think, a superior approach. After all, someone could go with approach (1) and then instantly issue the terminal control sequence for clearing the screen; hey, *technically* they'd be in compliance with the license. You can describe the various ways in which a person might comply with the license requirement in an adjunct document (How to Use This License). But I sincerely and strongly feel that the license should stick to the legal issues and avoid the technological ones as far as possible. State your requirements clearly, and make the *modifier* worry about how to satisfy them. That's my two cents... -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Music is the brandy of the damned. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- George Bernard Shaw http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpQYRWw9DaUF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message that it isn't Standard LaTeX. Would it be possible to use GPL wording for this? The ability NOT to do this when written for non-interactive use is important. Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording *should* be. See the PHPNuke thread. I'd agree, except that I don't think there was any consensus (or even suggestion, but my memory is imperfect) on what such a wording should be. Much of the discussion was around whether the requirement to inform users (as opposed to recipients) of anything can be free. It seemed to me that it is acceptible in part due to it's ambiguity and the ability to ignore it in many cases (non-interactive use). GPL 2c isn't perfect, and I'd be happier without it entirely, but it's pretty clearly an allowed restriction that a free software license can make. On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: Mandating technologies in license documents really rubs me the wrong way. I'll say that more strongly: mandating use of a specific technology or method of communication is a non-free restriction on the type of modification allowed. This type of thing belongs in adjunct documentation and community feedback on good citizenship. Why not say something like: If you distribute modified copies of the work, you must ensure that its modified status is clearly, unambiguously, and obviously communicated to users of the work.? IMO, this is non-free without the GPL's permission to ignore this in non-interactive use. Also, your proposal goes WAY further than requiring a notice that a user could see if she is interested, it requires that the user is prevented from suppressing it. I definitely agree with the direction though - license requirements should be non-technical in nature. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 compatible. So, since there's no danger that the code will be run through the validator and identify itself as standard, the GPL satisfies 7a. So the GPL is a valid license to relicense LPPL code under. (At least, that's my understanding.) I'm not sure that i understand Jeff here. the intention of 7a is that if FOO is under LPPL, then a derived work made from FOO honors 5a, ie, it does not claim to the user that it is the original FOO either via 5a1 or 5a2 (5a3 is irrelevant as this is a general do what you like for certain files, so for the discussion we can assume that FOO is not of this type) He's saying (assuming I'm understanding properly) that since you can't incorporate GPL files into latex (since the LPPL isn't GPL compatible) making a file GPL is enough to ensure that the file will never misrepresent itself to latex -- since it can never be used with latex at all. But I pointed out that one could imagine someone writing a GPL version of the latex base, in which case files intended to be used with the gpl latex (which are gpl'd, and perhaps based years ago on an LPPL'd file) could be put together with the LPPL latex. If that remote possibility is a problem, and from your comment it is, then there's no way I could relicense an LPPL'd file as GPL, even for use in my terminal emulation program (for example). -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 compatible. So, since
there's no danger that the code will be run through the validator
and identify itself as standard, the GPL satisfies 7a. So the
GPL is a valid license to relicense LPPL code under.
(At least, that's my understanding.)
I'm not sure that i understand Jeff here. the intention of 7a is
that if FOO is under LPPL, then a derived work made from FOO honors
5a, ie, it does not claim to the user that it is the original FOO
either via 5a1 or 5a2 (5a3 is irrelevant as this is a general do
what you like for certain files, so for the discussion we can
assume that FOO is not of this type)
He's saying (assuming I'm understanding properly) that since you can't
incorporate GPL files into latex (since the LPPL isn't GPL compatible)
making a file GPL is enough to ensure that the file will never
misrepresent itself to latex -- since it can never be used with latex
at all.
it is probably pointless to speculate what he meant, the above interpretation
is in any case wrong as far as I can tell.
not sure what latex in your sentence refer to but
you can, of course, combine/run GPL packages with the base format
LaTeX-Format, there are a packages of packages licenced in this way
you can also produce a base format that is licensed under GPL und combine/run
packages licensed under LPPL with it. That base format could, for example,
omit the validation so that the user is not informed if a modified LPPL
package is being used.
But I pointed out that one could imagine someone writing a GPL version
of the latex base, in which case files intended to be used with the
gpl latex (which are gpl'd, and perhaps based years ago on an LPPL'd
file) could be put together with the LPPL latex.
yes you could write a NonStandard-LaTeX-format (under GPL) which would treat,
say,
\ProvidesPackage...
as an absolute noop. If \ProvidesPackage is the facility from LaTeX-format
referred to in the LPPL for the package FOO then a fork of FOO or a relicense
under 7a would mean that you would need to say, for example
\ProvidesPackage{FOO gpl version}
or whatever you like as long as you don't keep
\ProvidesPackage{FOO}
unchanged. For your GPL base format this would be a comment and disregarded
while if this gets used together with the base format LaTeX-format the user
would get the proper information.
If that remote possibility is a problem, and from your comment it is,
then there's no way I could relicense an LPPL'd file as GPL, even for
use in my terminal emulation program (for example).
i don't think it is a problem. you can not relicense an LPPL file simply as
GPL that is true, but you can relicense it as GPL plus a restriction given by
7a-5a.
so yes, this cannot be simply GPL without some strings attached, but i don't
think you should make that a point against the license; after all 7a is an
extra, other licenses often do not allow you to relicense derived works under
anything than the exact conditions of the original license, e.g., I can't take
your GPL code and use it and distribute the result under LPPL or under some
other license, can I (GPL 2b)?
frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 LaTeX-Format is not analogous to linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined, derived work)? Have you confirmed this in any way, or is this your opinion? Because if there are GPL'd package files this may be an important issue. Especially if any of them incorporate GPL code from other sources. i don't think it is a problem. you can not relicense an LPPL file simply as GPL that is true, but you can relicense it as GPL plus a restriction given by 7a-5a. Ok. As you say, something can still be free and yet not GPL compatible. The only reason this would be a problem is if the GPL's viral properties come into play when used with LaTeX-Format. To me (IANAL) this seems likely since a package file is actually rewriting the base format, as I understand it. If so it's fairly important that the LPPL be GPL compatible, or that the GPL'd packages include an exception allowing linking with LPPL stuff. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 LaTeX-Format is not analogous to linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined, derived work)? it is not at all like linking in my understanding. I take it that you are not familar with the TeX world. The best analogy that i can think of right now is this (there might be better ones): emacs binary TeX binary emacs core elc files LaTeX-Format vmsome package now emacs bin, the core elc files, and vm may all be under GPL but even if not would one influence the other? i seriously doubt it even if vm would rewrite several functions of the core elc files. it is using something together, eg my emacs lisp package might as well work with some other lisp if i'm careful or vice versa Have you confirmed this in any way, or is this your opinion? Because if there are GPL'd package files this may be an important issue. Especially if any of them incorporate GPL code from other sources. i must confess it is only my opinion, but i think it stands to reason. nobody ever suggested otherwise. i guess you would have a certain point on the level of the base format as that could be byte compiled (for speed reasons), ie the files making up the LaTeX format are usually precompiled into a single file but even that is not a requirement, you can load them directly. However, there is no GPL code involved and (will not be ever if that is a danger) i don't think it is a problem. you can not relicense an LPPL file simply as GPL that is true, but you can relicense it as GPL plus a restriction given by 7a-5a. Ok. As you say, something can still be free and yet not GPL compatible. The only reason this would be a problem is if the GPL's viral properties come into play when used with LaTeX-Format. To me (IANAL) this seems likely since a package file is actually rewriting the base format, as I understand it. If so it's fairly important that the LPPL be GPL compatible, or that the GPL'd packages include an exception allowing linking with LPPL stuff. i understand about the viral properties of GPL but i don't think they would apply to packages which are inidividual things that can be used seperately with several base formats are distributed separately etc. please tell us if you think otherwise. frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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)? it is not at all like linking in my understanding. I take it that you are not familar with the TeX world. The best analogy that i can think of right now is this (there might be better ones): I'm not all that knowledgeable about latex, but I do use it and I have read the discussions here. So correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that a package file has a very intimate level of contact with LaTeX-Format (and, in fact, other package files that are currently loaded). It may rewrite other bits of code loaded by the TeX binary, and even if that's not happening it has virtually (completely?) unrestricted access (i.e., not restricted to an API) to the other code. Either of those seems to raise the possibility of creating a derived work. Whether anything's compiled and whether anything resembling linking is happening isn't really the issue. Chances are this wouldn't be all that serious of a problem in any case, though. As I said, GPL packages would need an exception to be used with LaTeX-Format, but since they're clearly intended for use with LaTeX-Format it can probably be assumed implicitly (IANAL, of course). The only serious problem would be if any of them incorporated GPL code from some other non-LaTeX project, where the author of that code didn't clearly expect their code to be used with LPPL'd code. I have a feeling this isn't terribly likely, but you know better than I. In other words, I'm just pointing out an issue to be aware of (or at least, for GPL-licensed package authors to be aware of), not something I think is a show-stopper. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages without making any other processing changes, you must use that. 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.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages without making any other processing changes, you must use that. 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. I take this as a yes, though you do not like it, correct?
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd prefer just saying that the documentation must make clear what the provenance is. I take this as a yes, though you do not like it, correct? Neither.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages without making any other processing changes, you must use that. 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. If there is some other program which reads what is output to the screen and its behavior changes, then it must be possible and legal to fake that output to the screen to fake out that other program.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jeremy Hankins writes: I'm not all that knowledgeable about latex, but I do use it and I have read the discussions here. So correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that a package file has a very intimate level of contact with LaTeX-Format (and, in fact, other package files that are currently loaded). It may rewrite other bits of code loaded by the TeX binary, and even if that's not happening it has virtually (completely?) unrestricted access (i.e., not restricted to an API) to the other code. all statements correct, it is virtually completely unrestricted access Either of those seems to raise the possibility of creating a derived work. Whether anything's compiled and whether anything resembling linking is happening isn't really the issue. well that i don't believe at least not as long a as such packages are really separate entities that are only put together for a moment during use. To be honest, I don't really know for sure. But the tricky part is that I don't know that anyone else does either. The fundamental question (which isn't technical at all) is when two works, used in conjunction, become a derived work. I'm sure lots of other folks can give you a more knowledgeable answer, but in the end it boils down to a big question mark with lots of theories. At some point they clearly do (static linking is pretty well accepted as such a point). Other points (dynamic linking, which the FSF supports as creating a derived work) may be less clear, but my impression is that most people, even if they disagree, aren't certain enough to want to argue against it in court. Once they become a derived work the copyright of both works infects that of the other -- the GPL didn't invent it, it just uses this fact. But one of the ideas (I think RMS supports this view, but I can't find a reference) is that the degree of conectedness -- i.e., how intimate the connection is, is a good indicator of whether a derived work is created. If that's the case, LaTeX files would clearly create a derived work, since they're if anything more intimately connected than even static linking. Another argument for LaTeX files creating a derived work is the simple fact that, in at least some cases, they literally rewrite some of the code. This is a modification, which seems pretty clearly to make it a derived work. if that would be legally true then by the same argument then EvilDoer could dream up EvilLicense put it on on evil.el use it together with emacs and then claim that EvilLicense has an effect on emacs What would happen in that you wouldn't be able to distribute evil.el. It and emacs (or perhaps not emacs, since it's an interpreter which is a bit of a special case, but some other GPL'd elisp files maybe) together would be a derived work and thus to distribute you'd have to be able to meet the terms of the GPL for evil.el. In the end I (as an ignorant, non-lawyer) suspect that there is no clear answer to this question. But precisely because it's not clear anyone writing GPL'd LaTeX files ought to be aware of the possible consequences. Naturally, this problem would disappear if the LPPL were GPL compatible, which is a reason to shoot for that if possible. But it seems pretty clear that that's not compatible with your goals, so that's not possible. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Walter Landry writes: So if the LaTeX people become evil and later decide to change the format so that you get different behavior with non-validating files, then there has been a retroactive change in the licensing terms. What exactly the format is needs to be nailed down. good point. not in the license terms but in the result -- bad but again something along the lines of 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 used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages without making any other processing changes, you must use that. would take care of that, or not? (2) would apply only if not evil and if we turn evil you only have to do (1) I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure. You're saying you must either 1) notify the user or 2) use the standard method if it doesn't change anything That would mostly cover it, but I don't think that you're actually happy with it. Consider this: I make a fork of LaTeX called FubarTeX. The main feature of this reimplentation is that it aborts if it sees any attempts to notify by individual files. Now I can (indeed must) modify all of my LaTeX files to not do any notification. Since they're all intended to be run with FubarTeX, I'm free to distribute these modified LaTeX files. Actually, since LaTeX can be manipulated from the inside, it seems like it wouldn't even be hard to modify standard LaTeX to do this. All that you really need to do is redefine the notification macros to abort or do nothing. I could then distribute this redefinition along with my modifications, with the note that they should be used together. The basic problem is that the individual files are not the whole program. Trying to specify what is the intended interpreter leads to non-free conditions. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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
compatibility criteria established by the official LaTeX
maintenance group).
does this ban
% This is not actually standard LaTeX, but we do this for ease of use:
\set{\latexversion}{standard}
The LaTeX people [...] want a ban on something which
programmatically interfaces in certain ways with Standard LaTeX.
The DFSG will accept a ban on making false claims of authorship to
humans, but not a ban on making such false claims to a program.
Well, under the misrepresentation clause above, this would in fact
be banned ... if its effect were to misrepresent the file as standard
LaTeX, and the comment were just a subterfuge. Whether this is the
case would depend on the context. But if something like that ended up
fooling people about whether it was standard, then it certainly would
be a misrepresentation!
On the other hand, my impression is that the LaTeX people would be
okay with such a file if (in context) there was care being taken to
not fool anyone (accidentally or deliberately) into thinking that what
was running was standard LaTeX, and the line of code were the just a
technical means to get something to run, eg with some modified
non-standard proprietary engine.
In other words, I suspect that what is really going on is a question
of INTENT, and subsequent effect. In this light, maybe the reason the
LaTeX people are having such problems crafting a clear simple license
is that at root they want to ban something based on intent, but (being
computer programmers) they're trying to implement this by writing more
and more complicated rules related to mechanism, and getting more and
more specific to their particular implementation.
I've CC'ed this to a LaTeX person - any comments from the LaTeX crowd?
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach said: 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. well, the main reason for this clause, or a clause similar to it, is to make it clear that the license does _not_ require to have modified works be licensed by the same license (as some licenses require) but instead that the only requirement is that by using a different license you do not create a work for that it is allowed to generate a work would be in violation of LPPL if it would be directly generated from the original work. But the clause indicates that The Work -- not a modified work, but The Work can be licensed under _any_ other license that honors 7a. So, in essence, the entire text of the LPPL draft license could be shortened to the text of 7a (and, by reference 5a) 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 that EvilCorp could steal the derived work under their own license. I'm curious what the reasoning is for this clause. I'll leave that to the LaTeX people to respond to, if they wish. well, as i said we would like to give the author of a derived work more freedom what to do with his/her derived work, then, say, GPL does. For example it would be ok to use a non-free license if he/she chooses to do so. I see the purpose now. I would question the wording, as it seems to me to have a different effect than intended. Perhaps: s/The Work, or any/A/ --Joe
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
compatibility criteria established by the official LaTeX
maintenance group).
does this ban
% This is not actually standard LaTeX, but we do this for ease of use:
\set{\latexversion}{standard}
The LaTeX people [...] want a ban on something which
programmatically interfaces in certain ways with Standard LaTeX.
The DFSG will accept a ban on making false claims of authorship to
humans, but not a ban on making such false claims to a program.
Well, under the misrepresentation clause above, this would in fact
be banned ... if its effect were to misrepresent the file as standard
LaTeX, and the comment were just a subterfuge.
The comment is the truth; the code is purely functional.
Would it make it less of a misrepresentation if the comment produced
output to the screen that this wasn't Standard LaTeX?
Whether this is the case would depend on the context. But if
something like that ended up fooling people about whether it was
standard, then it certainly would be a misrepresentation!
The goal isn't to fool people, it's to fool the machine. Given what
Mittelbach and Carlisle have been writing, I think they understand and
are willing to give that permission... it's just a matter of phrasing
it properly.
On the other hand, my impression is that the LaTeX people would be
okay with such a file if (in context) there was care being taken to
not fool anyone (accidentally or deliberately) into thinking that what
was running was standard LaTeX, and the line of code were the just a
technical means to get something to run, eg with some modified
non-standard proprietary engine.
Yes. That's a great example of what the draft LPPL prohibits, but
which is necessary for the pieces of LaTeX to be free software.
In other words, I suspect that what is really going on is a question
of INTENT, and subsequent effect. In this light, maybe the reason the
LaTeX people are having such problems crafting a clear simple license
is that at root they want to ban something based on intent, but (being
computer programmers) they're trying to implement this by writing more
and more complicated rules related to mechanism, and getting more and
more specific to their particular implementation.
I've CC'ed this to a LaTeX person - any comments from the LaTeX crowd?
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) Would it make it less of a misrepresentation if the comment produced output to the screen that this wasn't Standard LaTeX? 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. 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages to the screen, you must use that. I think it was a bad choice to try to word the clause in such a general way that it is not apparent that the validation mechanism it speaks about was only intended to cover these cases. Clearly a license would be non-free if it required modified versions to use a mechanism that did anything else than output a message on an output channel that is not intended for machine interpretation. Fortunately, as Jeff stated, nothing is cast in concrete yet, and there is still time to make the wording better. I've CC'ed this to a LaTeX person - any comments from the LaTeX crowd? I've removed the Cc again - Frank did read debian-legal the last time the LPPL was discussed, so I assume he is still (or again) subscribed. -- Henning Makholm Hele toget raslede imens Sjælland fór forbi.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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. Would it be possible to use GPL wording for this? The ability NOT to do this when written for non-interactive use is important. 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages to the screen, you must use that. I'll need more thought about this. A requirement to use a specified facility seems unfree to me at first sniff, but I could (yet again) be reading too much into it. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 01:05, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good stuff, we could back up a step? This all really an attempt to procedurally implement an underlying concern. Maybe the concern itself could be directly expressed in the license, abstracted away from its implementation? You're getting the gist of what I intended to do, but (evidently) failed miserably at. 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 compatibility criteria established by the official LaTeX maintenance group). Would this satisfy the LaTeX people? Because I think it would satisfy the DFSG. It might (arguably, perhaps) even be GPL compatible, if the authorship representation parts of the GPL are properly construed. This might be a good start at rewording 5.a.2, though I'll let the LaTeX people comment. Part of the problem, though, involves programmatic interfaces for a program to identify itself as Standard LaTeX. It must be clear that any Derived Work not identifying itself as Standard LaTeX can be modified/distributed with only certain non-controversial restrictions (copyright notices, etc.) -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 22:24, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain elements that are specific to the problem domain? I acknowledge it in principle, except it turns out that I don't buy the problem domain thing. Any bit of code may want to be used in any other arbitrarily remote problem domain. Right, but as I just posted a little bit ago, a restriction to a problem domain is just one type of specificity. See the GPL, section 2c, for another, one that I think is appropriate. -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 00:44, Walter Landry wrote: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain elements that are specific to the problem domain? Of course I don't acknowledge that. One of the wonderful things about free software is that you can apply it to other problem domains. To limit the problem domain is to restrict modifications. elements specific to the problem domain != limit the problem domain For example: If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must... (GPL, 2c.) Is this a restriction that GPLed code must read commands interactively when run? No, of course not. Remember, also, that code taken out of LaTeX can be relicensed to fit your needs, as long as 5a is respected. Taking a piece of code, relicensing it under the GPL, and making it a part of GNOME (which doesn't have a validator as described in the license) would be a good example. You couldn't reintegrate that code into LaTeX anyway without changing LaTeX (unless you were reintegrating it to make it exactly like a released version of LaTeX, which is explicitly allowed), which would require that you mark it as non-standard, change the file name, etc. Actually, you can't take LPPL'd code and mix it with GPL code. It still carries along the restriction on the name etc. when used with the original validating framework, which is a restriction beyond what the GPL requires. 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 standard, the GPL satisfies 7a. So the GPL is a valid license to relicense LPPL code under. (At least, that's my understanding.) 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? It would satisfy me, but I can't think of a wording that will likely satisfy the LaTeX people. The only place where you can really say that something is only for people, and not for machines, is in something that machines don't read (e.g. comments). Beyond that, you get into things that aren't really part of the program (e.g. don't call the thing LaTeX). This is not true in at least one case: copyright notices. We already allow the GPL to require the printing of copyright notices when run under certain circumstances. If the mechanism I mention is a mechanism for the printing of copyright notices on the code, then this restriction is no more onerous than the restriction in the GPL, as I see it. And, having worked with the LaTeX people for a while now, I think it's fairly likely that they'll accept wording to that effect. -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Would it be possible to use GPL wording for this? The ability NOT to do this when written for non-interactive use is important. I seem to recall a line of argument that this is OK when only a small number of things do it, but non-free in cases where hundreds of components must do so (say, system boot time, or LaTeX). Thousands of lines of this is non-Standard LateX flying by would prevent use in many circumstances; would a single, collected This is non-Standard Latex; see logfile for which components are non-Standard meet the LaTeX group's requirements? 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages to the screen, you must use that. I'll need more thought about this. A requirement to use a specified facility seems unfree to me at first sniff, but I could (yet again) be reading too much into it. But you also have the freedom to change that facility, or even disable it entirely, which makes it OK. Such changes impose additional requirements on you, but I think there is a free path through this license: to make totally free changes, disable the verifier, change the package name to GNU/LaTeX, and I think you're set. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 standard, the GPL satisfies 7a. So the GPL is a valid license to relicense LPPL code under. (At least, that's my understanding.) If that's the intention it should probably be made explicit. I, at least, would hesitate to rely on that if I wanted to incorporate some LPPL code into my GPL project. After all, maybe someday there will be a GPL implementation of latex with its own set of files that are interoperable with standard latex. Perhaps not intended to be used with standard latex, but they could be. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 00:44, Walter Landry wrote: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain elements that are specific to the problem domain? Of course I don't acknowledge that. One of the wonderful things about free software is that you can apply it to other problem domains. To limit the problem domain is to restrict modifications. elements specific to the problem domain != limit the problem domain For example: If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must... (GPL, 2c.) Is this a restriction that GPLed code must read commands interactively when run? No, of course not. I see what you're saying. We allow people to place certain restrictions and still have a free license. Those restrictions can selectively applied to certain problem domains. But those are restrictions that we allow in all domains. So, in a sense, the license is selectively lifting restrictions in certain domains, which is always ok. snip 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? It would satisfy me, but I can't think of a wording that will likely satisfy the LaTeX people. The only place where you can really say that something is only for people, and not for machines, is in something that machines don't read (e.g. comments). Beyond that, you get into things that aren't really part of the program (e.g. don't call the thing LaTeX). This is not true in at least one case: copyright notices. We already allow the GPL to require the printing of copyright notices when run under certain circumstances. If the mechanism I mention is a mechanism for the printing of copyright notices on the code, then this restriction is no more onerous than the restriction in the GPL, as I see it. Fair enough. GPL 2c talks about running commands interactively, and that is also strictly for humans. And, having worked with the LaTeX people for a while now, I think it's fairly likely that they'll accept wording to that effect. The reason I was pessimistic is because the individual files are not interactive programs. They are interpreted by another program. That program could easily change it's behavior based on what it reads. If, for example, I created a Trusted LaTeX that aborted if the validation didn't work, then not allowing people to make modified versions that work in trusted LaTeX is too much of a restriction. But this also touches on one thing that Frank said. He seemed to imply that it doesn't actually matter what program you're using, the Base Format is just the format defined by LaTeX. So if the LaTeX people become evil and later decide to change the format so that you get different behavior with non-validating files, then there has been a retroactive change in the licensing terms. What exactly the format is needs to be nailed down. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages to the screen, you must use that. The problem is what to do if number (2) applies, and that the documented standard way happens to fold a message-to-the-user together with a programmatic thing. Thomas
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 that EvilCorp could steal the derived work under their own license. not intended. I agree with I see the purpose now. I would question the wording, as it seems to me to have a different effect than intended. Perhaps: s/The Work, or any/A/ making it clearer what is intended, thanks. I'm not sure when the phrase The Work or any... came in, I think it isn't phrased this way in LPPL 1.2. it should probably simply the above. frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 standard, the GPL satisfies 7a. So the GPL is a valid license to relicense LPPL code under. (At least, that's my understanding.) I'm not sure that i understand Jeff here. the intention of 7a is that if FOO is under LPPL, then a derived work made from FOO honors 5a, ie, it does not claim to the user that it is the original FOO either via 5a1 or 5a2 (5a3 is irrelevant as this is a general do what you like for certain files, so for the discussion we can assume that FOO is not of this type) If that's the intention it should probably be made explicit. I, at least, would hesitate to rely on that if I wanted to incorporate some LPPL code into my GPL project. After all, maybe someday there will be a GPL implementation of latex with its own set of files that are interoperable with standard latex. Perhaps not intended to be used with standard latex, but they could be. if they can be used in the original domain,ie latex say, then they should not misguide the user of standard latex to believe that he/she is still using the original FOO. if that is ensured then there would be no problem in incorporating the code with your GPL code and other than requiring that, the history of the code being from FOO would have no impact on your code. frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages to the screen, you must use that. The problem is what to do if number (2) applies, and that the documented standard way happens to fold a message-to-the-user together with a programmatic thing. 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 used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages without making any other processing changes, you must use that. i don't think the wording is good, but that aside, would that lift your concern? frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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
compatibility criteria established by the official LaTeX
maintenance group).
as far as I can see that isn't so much different from what I tried to express
with my suggested rewrite of 5.a.2 except that I think I made it more explicit
rather than something that is up to debate whether or not it fools users.
(has a bit to do which what we call small-print clauses over here i guess)
does this ban
% This is not actually standard LaTeX, but we do this for ease of use:
\set{\latexversion}{standard}
The LaTeX people [...] want a ban on something which
programmatically interfaces in certain ways with Standard LaTeX.
The DFSG will accept a ban on making false claims of authorship to
humans, but not a ban on making such false claims to a program.
Well, under the misrepresentation clause above, this would in fact
be banned ... if its effect were to misrepresent the file as standard
LaTeX, and the comment were just a subterfuge. Whether this is the
case would depend on the context. But if something like that ended up
fooling people about whether it was standard, then it certainly would
be a misrepresentation!
right, but depending on the context we wouldn't mind, eg a package that
explicitly rewrites the check for original versions
On the other hand, my impression is that the LaTeX people would be
okay with such a file if (in context) there was care being taken to
not fool anyone (accidentally or deliberately) into thinking that what
was running was standard LaTeX, and the line of code were the just a
technical means to get something to run, eg with some modified
non-standard proprietary engine.
we are explicitly happy with, explicitly disabling the mechanism to inform the
user as disabling it explicitly means a concise choice by the user, eg by
loading a package that does this.
note that technically there is nothing in interpreted languages like LaTeX
that allows you to prevent redefining everything to everything else. so it is
not the case that (what was called the validator) can be disabled only the
level of the base format. it can be disabled at any time and this is something
you can't prevent (and you wouldn't want to).
In other words, I suspect that what is really going on is a question
of INTENT, and subsequent effect. In this light, maybe the reason the
LaTeX people are having such problems crafting a clear simple license
well, opinions vary :-) I don't think the license is that unclear (well, not
in that particular point), but it seems to be that you prefer to make
something more implicit, that, for the benefit of a clear interpretation could
be made explicit, on the grounds(?) that this is more free in terms of
giving more choices, while I think that if the base format has such a facility
to inform the user and a derived work would claim through that facility that
it is the original work that this would (by community expectation) fooling
people, ie something that would also be banned the sugested rewrite above.
so, as far as i can see right now even your rewording would effectively result
in the same requirement in the end, in which case we thought it better to
spell it out.
so far my first thoughts on this. please be patient with me, English is not my
first language so expressing thoughts in it is not that easy and often error
prone.
is that at root they want to ban something based on intent, but (being
computer programmers) they're trying to implement this by writing more
and more complicated rules related to mechanism, and getting more and
more specific to their particular implementation.
it is true that the license is particular to a specific type of program: one
that is interpreted with a base something. as somebody said, (perhaps Jeff)
it is not necessary a license that would be applicable for all types of
things, but it tries to codify what is important in a domain where the program
also serves as an exchange medium, and it tries to ensure that the _user_ is
knowledgable about whether or not he is using the standard or something
else. it is his or her choice to use something different and the license is
intended to make that easy and simple (and in fact does, at least within the
specific domain for which it is intended).
by the way, can i ask for some comments on my suggested rewrite of 5.a.2 since
i thought it should make things clearer that we are talking about a facility
to address the user rather than a facility to validate in a very general
sense. (since i just spotted something stronger than meant, here is shot 2a,
with the last sentence revised):
2. If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run, and the Base
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages without making any other processing changes, you must use that. i don't think the wording is good, but that aside, would that lift your concern? as a ps: i already suggested yesterday: it it helps one could probably make that even more explicit in 5.a.2 by adding something like explicitly restricts it to facilities those only functions are to pass information to the user. /it it/if it/s /like/that/s
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Walter Landry writes: snip 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? It would satisfy me, but I can't think of a wording that will likely satisfy the LaTeX people. we may have to work on the wording, but in priniciple i can't see why we should have problems with that (some suggestions already floating around in other posts of mine) And, having worked with the LaTeX people for a while now, I think it's fairly likely that they'll accept wording to that effect. The reason I was pessimistic is because the individual files are not interactive programs. They are interpreted by another program. That program could easily change it's behavior based on what it reads. If, for example, I created a Trusted LaTeX that aborted if the validation didn't work, then not allowing people to make modified versions that work in trusted LaTeX is too much of a restriction. a valid concern, though i think one could phrase it that is not a problem, see other post. But this also touches on one thing that Frank said. He seemed to imply that it doesn't actually matter what program you're using, the Base Format is just the format defined by LaTeX. close, guess here again my english has failed. it is the base-format as defined by the license, either the default LaTeX-format or whatever is specified on the Work when licensed under LPPL (example is given in the license how this could look like). So if the LaTeX people become evil and later decide to change the format so that you get different behavior with non-validating files, then there has been a retroactive change in the licensing terms. What exactly the format is needs to be nailed down. good point. not in the license terms but in the result -- bad but again something along the lines of 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 used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages without making any other processing changes, you must use that. would take care of that, or not? (2) would apply only if not evil and if we turn evil you only have to do (1) frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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. Would it be possible to use GPL wording for this? The ability NOT to do this when written for non-interactive use is important. can you enlighten me here? I understand why that is important in case of GPL but here it is the base format that is already interactive. remember that this is only a rewrite of 5a2 by Henning to illustrate the underlying intention 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages to the screen, you must use that. I'll need more thought about this. A requirement to use a specified facility seems unfree to me at first sniff, but I could (yet again) be reading too much into it. i hope you do (read too much into it) and that we can find a form in which this is not the case since it is not our intention. Brian T. Sniffen writes: Would it be possible to use GPL wording for this? The ability NOT to do this when written for non-interactive use is important. I seem to recall a line of argument that this is OK when only a small number of things do it, but non-free in cases where hundreds of components must do so (say, system boot time, or LaTeX). Thousands of lines of this is non-Standard LateX flying by would prevent use in many circumstances; would a single, collected This is non-Standard Latex; see logfile for which components are non-Standard meet the LaTeX group's requirements? this is precisely one of the reasons why we want (2) ie to require that the standard facility is used. that enables the base format to provide only that single message and refer to the log for details. frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) Thousands of lines of this is non-Standard LateX flying by would prevent use in many circumstances; would a single, collected This is non-Standard Latex; see logfile for which components are non-Standard meet the LaTeX group's requirements? Well, that is exactly what the use of the kernel facility is supposed to achieve. -- Henning Makholm Han råber og skriger, vakler ud på kørebanen og ind på fortorvet igen, hæver knytnæven mod en bil, hilser overmådigt venligt på en mor med barn, bryder ud i sang og stiller sig til sidst op og pisser i en port.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good stuff, we could back up a step? This all really an attempt to procedurally implement an underlying concern. Maybe the concern itself could be directly expressed in the license, abstracted away from its implementation? 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 compatibility criteria established by the official LaTeX maintenance group). Would this satisfy the LaTeX people? Because I think it would satisfy the DFSG. It might (arguably, perhaps) even be GPL compatible, if the authorship representation parts of the GPL are properly construed. -- Barak A. Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hamilton Institute, NUI Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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* there is a validation mechanism, and *if* the module uses the validation mechanism to assert it is Standard LaTeX, then when you change the file, you must ensure that the module does not validate as Standard LaTeX. This can be done by removing the validation mechanism from the base or by causing the file in question to not report itself as standard. It still depends on the platform that runs it to determine whether the modification is allowed. It may be that this is free when distributed with a base format that does no such validation and non-free otherwise. it seems to me that there is a fundamental misunderstanding to what 5.a.2 supposed to allow or prevent or how. so probably there is lot wrong with the wording still and i hope we can sort this out. it should _not_ be the case that it depends on the platform to determine whether modifications are allowed or how. By the way, say I do this (I make a modification for use on my non-validating base format, and I don't change the validation signature because I don't have to under the last sentence of 5.a.2). wrong. the base format that provides or does not provide a validating facility is given by the license, ie either the original work said something like: % % For interpretation of the LPPL the Base Format for this work % is the LaTeX-Format. % see section How to Use This License or in absense of it the default from the definition of `The Base Format' kicks in, which says: If not explicitly specified as part of the license notice, the Base Format for The Work under this license is the LaTeX-Format. perhaps that wording is not very good since it only intends to define Base Format for the application of the license and has no meaning on how you use the The Work in practice. For example a typical work would have the Base Format being the LaTeX-format even though the same work is normally used both with the LaTeX-Format, the eLaTeX-format, the Omega-format just to name a few I guess the problem starts with the first sentence of 5.a.2 when interpreting If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run... my interpretation is that file is the original file before modification so determining whether or not it is used directly or can be used directly by the Base Format is not something that varies according to the environment. thus you can't get to the scenario And then give the file to my friend, who has a base format which DOES validate. Nothing prevents him using or distributing this file (which is just the Work I gave him, he's not modifying it), right? because for modifying the file in the first place you are required by 5.a.2 to change that part that contains the use of the facility of the _Base Format_ as defined by the original Work so that in case your modification is used with that Base Format that it _then_ does not represent itself as the unmodified Work. this is quite independent from you and/or your friend using it with a different Base-Format that disregards this facility now having said all this, please let me make a few more observation before you shout at me. - from what i read so far one concern is the dependency of the work from the license of the Base Format --- at first glance this sounds like a very valid concern and I would need to think about that further. originally the Base Format (as far as validation facilities are concerned) did have been fixed and part of the license in which case this problem would disappear. the reason for making it a variable was the intention to allow this license to work in similar areas, ie the various TeX dialects that float around. however if that actually produces bad dependencies that one doesn't want that this needs to be re-thought. - secondly, Jeff's phrasing of 5.a.2 which I thought was quite nice does in fact probably allow for possibilites that have not been intended, what about something like this instead: 2. If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run, and the Base Format provides a facility for such files to inform the user that it is part of the original parts of The Work, then the file does not represent itself to the user as being the unmodified original Work. This does not imply that the Base Format must provide such a facility; only that, if such a facility is available, it must be used in the normal way and it must enable the Base Format to pass this message to user. This is a first shot at it, perhaps somebody has a better idea. frank ps I would like to thank Jeff at this point very much to
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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 you change it? It would satisfy me, but I can't think of a wording that will likely satisfy the LaTeX people. The only place where you can really say that something is only for people, and not for machines, is in something that machines don't read (e.g. comments). Beyond that, you get into things that aren't really part of the program (e.g. don't call the thing LaTeX). well, I tried to give a rewrite in the other post (which can surely be improved) --- but it is certainly something that is passed through the program to reach the user, but this is also true for, say, GPL 2c. as the LaTeX-format has a facility to inform the user if something has been changed from being an unmodified version of a work, we want that this facility is not misused to misrepresent itself _to the user_ that it is the original work. I can accept that DFSG requires that a modified work can used in place of an original work if so intended by the user and we try to accomodate that (in fact we never tried to prevent that) but not that _the user_ is deliberately fooled. it it helps one could probably make that even more explicit in 5.a.2 by adding something like explicitly restricts it to facilities those only functions are to pass information to the user. frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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. well, the main reason for this clause, or a clause similar to it, is to make it clear that the license does _not_ require to have modified works be licensed by the same license (as some licenses require) but instead that the only requirement is that by using a different license you do not create a work for that it is allowed to generate a work would be in violation of LPPL if it would be directly generated from the original work. Is this really saying that I can distribute The Work, or ANY Derived Work, under any license I choose, as long as 7a (which is really just a pointer to 5a, which says that if you're not the current maintainer, you must make modifications sufficiently obvious) is satisfied? As I understand it, yes, this is the intent. yes that is the intent, though 7a is a pointer to 5a _in regard to the original work_ thus even if you are the maintainer of your derived work this does not mean that you, or somebody else is allowed to ignore 5a with respect to the original work. For example, you could distribute The Work under a DWTFYW[0] license, plus the condition that it never be distributed as files named pig.* I believe this is correct. correct, explicitly applying 5a1 would be a simple form of an acceptable license. I'm curious what the reasoning is for this clause. I'll leave that to the LaTeX people to respond to, if they wish. well, as i said we would like to give the author of a derived work more freedom what to do with his/her derived work, then, say, GPL does. For example it would be ok to use a non-free license if he/she chooses to do so. frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of
how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction
between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good
stuff, we could back up a step? This all really an attempt to
procedurally implement an underlying concern. Maybe the concern
itself could be directly expressed in the license, abstracted away
from its implementation?
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
compatibility criteria established by the official LaTeX
maintenance group).
Would this satisfy the LaTeX people? Because I think it would satisfy
the DFSG. It might (arguably, perhaps) even be GPL compatible, if the
authorship representation parts of the GPL are properly construed.
No. The problem is this: does this ban the following code snippet:
% This is not actually standard LaTeX, but we do this for ease of use:
\set{\latexversion}{standard}
The LaTeX people are explicitly unhappy with this -- they want a ban
on something which programmatically interfaces in certain ways with
Standard LaTeX. The DFSG will accept a ban on making false claims of
authorship to humans, but not a ban on making such false claims to a
program.
-Brian
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 20:49, Walter Landry wrote: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote: I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the context of LaTeX, not in the context of all of free software. We can't say that it is ok to use this license for LaTeX, but not for Mozilla, Apache, Samba and OpenSSH. Why not? We aren't proposing relicensing anything under this license except for LaTeX itself. If a program suddenly becomes non-free when you make a certain modification, then it was never free to begin with. So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain elements that are specific to the problem domain? Of course I don't acknowledge that. One of the wonderful things about free software is that you can apply it to other problem domains. To limit the problem domain is to restrict modifications. Remember, also, that code taken out of LaTeX can be relicensed to fit your needs, as long as 5a is respected. Taking a piece of code, relicensing it under the GPL, and making it a part of GNOME (which doesn't have a validator as described in the license) would be a good example. You couldn't reintegrate that code into LaTeX anyway without changing LaTeX (unless you were reintegrating it to make it exactly like a released version of LaTeX, which is explicitly allowed), which would require that you mark it as non-standard, change the file name, etc. Actually, you can't take LPPL'd code and mix it with GPL code. It still carries along the restriction on the name etc. when used with the original validating framework, which is a restriction beyond what the GPL requires. But GPL-compatibility is not important. 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? It would satisfy me, but I can't think of a wording that will likely satisfy the LaTeX people. The only place where you can really say that something is only for people, and not for machines, is in something that machines don't read (e.g. comments). Beyond that, you get into things that aren't really part of the program (e.g. don't call the thing LaTeX). Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain elements that are specific to the problem domain? I acknowledge it in principle, except it turns out that I don't buy the problem domain thing. Any bit of code may want to be used in any other arbitrarily remote problem domain.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 19:29, Mark Rafn wrote: On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote: It still depends on the platform that runs it to determine whether the modification is allowed. It may be that this is free when distributed with a base format that does no such validation and non-free otherwise. On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote: I acknowledge that this may be true. Regarding LaTeX, is it? I don't know. Does the current Base Format do any such validation? If so (or if it becomes so), then it's a problem. If not, then this clause is unnecessary. If the Base Format itself is free, why is this non-free? Does this conflict with DFSG#9? This license effectively insists that the Base Format must be free software in order for the Work to be free. Well, right, but that doesn't affect the freeness of the Base Format, so I don't see how it's a contamination of the other software's license. Distributing is a different matter. Remember that the file must be combined with LaTeX, and the result cannot represent itself as Standard LaTeX when run. So, if you distribute the file combined with LaTeX, you could be in violation of the license. For me, the file is combined with my non-validating base format (UnLaTeX). For him, it's combined with his standard latex. I'm not distributing the file combined with latex, and neither is he. We're both distributing the file by itself. He's allowed to redistribute under section 2, as he's not modifying it. I'm allowed to distribute under 5.a.2, as my Base Format does no such validation. Sounds fine to me, unless I'm missing something. -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 16:50, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual files, but not the validation mechanism. Could you please imagine one? Sure: I take the Base Format and make a functional change to it, removing the option to turn off validation. Now I distribute this under your draft LPPL. I'm going to note, for the record, that I don't see how this makes the software non-free. So, I don't yet believe that implementation details can make the software non-free. (But stay tuned.) It is not possible to distribute non-free software under the MIT/X11 license, for example. But it is possible to do so under the GFDL (so the argument goes). Given that you and Jeff are proposing this license in isolation, without providing the code implementing the feature which makes this free, or even a good specification for it, I find it strange that you're now arguing that it's wrong to insist that a license be clearly free in isolation. Do you want us to post a tarball of LaTeX? Alternatively, if you have questions about implementation, could you not ask the LaTeX people? I've seen David Carlisle, at least, post to this thread. -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 20:49, Walter Landry wrote: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote: I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the context of LaTeX, not in the context of all of free software. We can't say that it is ok to use this license for LaTeX, but not for Mozilla, Apache, Samba and OpenSSH. Why not? We aren't proposing relicensing anything under this license except for LaTeX itself. If a program suddenly becomes non-free when you make a certain modification, then it was never free to begin with. So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain elements that are specific to the problem domain? Remember, also, that code taken out of LaTeX can be relicensed to fit your needs, as long as 5a is respected. Taking a piece of code, relicensing it under the GPL, and making it a part of GNOME (which doesn't have a validator as described in the license) would be a good example. You couldn't reintegrate that code into LaTeX anyway without changing LaTeX (unless you were reintegrating it to make it exactly like a released version of LaTeX, which is explicitly allowed), which would require that you mark it as non-standard, change the file name, etc. 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? -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 17:59, Walter Landry wrote: I don't think that it is prohibitively complicated. I think it is impossible. The LaTeX people can't live with a free license. There is too little control. Well, I suppose there's no convincing someone who has made up their mind. -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote: If the Base Format itself is free, why is this non-free? On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 19:29, Mark Rafn wrote: Does this conflict with DFSG#9? This license effectively insists that the Base Format must be free software in order for the Work to be free. Well, right, but that doesn't affect the freeness of the Base Format, so I don't see how it's a contamination of the other software's license. I've thought a bit more, and I'm pretty sure this is exactly what DFSG#9 is talking about. This software is only free if not distributed with a validating Base Format. It's roughly equivalent to This software may be modified and distributed except on non-free operating systems. It doesn't demand that all software distributed with it be free, but it does demand (by being unfree if the condition is not met) that a specific part of the distribution is free. For me, the file is combined with my non-validating base format (UnLaTeX). For him, it's combined with his standard latex. I'm not distributing the file combined with latex, and neither is he. We're both distributing the file by itself. He's allowed to redistribute under section 2, as he's not modifying it. I'm allowed to distribute under 5.a.2, as my Base Format does no such validation. Sounds fine to me, unless I'm missing something. Then maybe I'm missing something. Theres a lot of text in the license that seems, at first glance, to mean something. However, if anyone can make arbitrary in-place modifications and give them out, I'm not sure how this differs from a BSD-style license. Why not just say permission is granted to modify and distribute modified versions? The part about as long as there exists a non-validating Base Format, which I affirm does exist is a no-op, right? -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:59:07PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But does that possibility make the original software non-free? Your argument seems to be that it is possible to make a derived version that is not free - but that possiblity exists for, say, the BSD license as well. The difference is that you be putting your modifications under a different license. Here, you're not changing the license, you're just modifying the code. I don't know how it relates to the argument at hand, but I think the possibility exists under the BSD license: simply take the source and run it through an obfuscator before distributing it[1]. We wouldn't consider the resulting package to be free, but no license changes were made. It's even possible for outsiders to reconstruct an approximation of the original source code and thus make it free again. I think this has some similarity to the possibility of removing the no-validation option, and undoing such a change will be even easier than restoring obfuscated source. Richard Braakman [1] When I saw the code for the BSD glob() function, I suspected that this has already happened.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Is this really saying that I can distribute The Work, or ANY Derived Work, under any license I choose, as long as 7a (which is really just a pointer to 5a, which says that if you're not the current maintainer, you must make modifications sufficiently obvious) is satisfied? For example, you could distribute The Work under a DWTFYW[0] license, plus the condition that it never be distributed as files named pig.* LPPL has been through various versions, but the above is essentially a description of all of them. The wording changes between versions have been clarifications and additional explanations an responses to objections from various quarters, but essentially the above does describe the main intention of the latex licence. I'm curious what the reasoning is for this clause. I'll try to avoid the F word in the following discussion has it has a specific meaning here... LaTeX source code is completely available (which in fact is a necessary feature of the way latex works, but even if it wasn't, making code available would be a good thing). We want to encourage people to take those sources and modify and adapt things to make improvements or just uses that were not previously envisioned. However in addition to its role as a typesetting language, a major use of latex is as a document interchange format and these documents are often written by people who are not the people inclined to make code changes or with the skills to revert code changes if they find themselves using a modified version. For this purpose it is important to have a reference version that may be relied upon to process documents in compatible, and preferably identical, ways at different sites. So... The whole point of the latex licence is to allow some people to make completely arbitrary code changes, while at the same time allowing anyone to know whether or not they are using a standard setup that may be reliably used as a basis for compatible or archival documents. The simple idea at the start was if you change it, change the name which is basically an idea copied from the comments in Knuth's files for tex and metafont and the sources for computer modern fonts. For several reasons (not entirely unreasonable and debated at length on this list) filename restrictions are problematic, so this version of LPPL floats alternatives relating to the user-oriented messages that typically come on the terminal when you run latex. This means the licence gets more complicated as you have to word it so it means something in a world where latex runs on systems with no real terminal output, and the actual command that is used to invoke latex is not within the control of the latex distribution: latex is just a set of macro definitions, the executing program is something else, although typically it ends up being called latex at the user level. However if this complication makes it legally acceptable to Debian (and similar distributions) and still maintains the basic reasons for having an LPPL at all, then the effort will have been worth it, I hope. David This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote: The filename limitations are now optional; 5.a.1 is one possibility of three. As for 5.a.2 and the programmatic identification strings, can you elaborate? Considering that much of the wording in the license is mine (including 5.a.2), it's entirely possible that the parts you object to are because of my poor wording and are not a fundamental difference. 5.a.1 restricts filenames (worse, filenames which are part of an API). 5.a.2 Prevents modifications on certain systems (those using a validating Base Format). 5.a.3 doesn't apply without an additional grant of permission from somewhere else. None of these alternatives describe free software. I take your point about 5b - if this is intended to refer to non-api strings like copyright information and such that may be spit out, I have no objection. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with this, as I recall from the previous discussion something about using these strings to validate modules. You might consider GPL-like wording for this. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual files, but not the validation mechanism. Could you please imagine one? Remember to include in your imagined scenario that the unmodified Base Format will have a documented option to turn off validation. b. You must change any identification string in any modified file of the Derived Work to indicate clearly that the modified file is not part of The Work in its original form. b. For any modified file of the Derived Work, you must clearly indicate, preferably within the file itself, that the modified file is not part of the The Work in its original form. I don't think this would be acceptable to the LaTeX people, if you mean that it must be legal to keep the identification strings that are displayed to the user unchanged, thereby creating a derived work that actively tries to misrepresent itself as the original work. I do not think that the DFSG requires that such misrepresentations be legal, either. -- Henning Makholm Jeg mener, at der eksisterer et hemmeligt selskab med forgreninger i hele verden, som arbejder i det skjulte for at udsprede det rygte at der eksisterer en verdensomspændende sammensværgelse.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual files, but not the validation mechanism. Could you please imagine one? Sure: I take the Base Format and make a functional change to it, removing the option to turn off validation. Now I distribute this under your draft LPPL. But does that possibility make the original software non-free? Your argument seems to be that it is possible to make a derived version that is not free - but that possiblity exists for, say, the BSD license as well. The freeness of a license should be as divorced as possible from accidents of implementation. Remember that our actual business on debian-legal is not to decide whether *licenses* are free, but whether actual pieces of *software* are free. As I said, I agree that it is possible to apply the LPPL draft in such a way that it results in non-freedom. However, I also believe that it is possible to apply it in a free way. The situation is not basically that much different from that of the GFDL. You and I can easily agree that it would be better, all other things being equal, to have licenses that could only be applied in ways that make the software they apply to free. However, it seems to be prohibitively complicated to word such a license such that it stays within the intersection of what the LaTeX people can live with and what is DFSG-free (at least according to my and Jeff's gut feelings). -- Henning MakholmHe who joyfully eats soup has already earned my contempt. He has been given teeth by mistake, since for him the intestines would fully suffice.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual files, but not the validation mechanism. Could you please imagine one? Remember to include in your imagined scenario that the unmodified Base Format will have a documented option to turn off validation. Sure: I take the Base Format and make a functional change to it, removing the option to turn off validation. Now I distribute this under your draft LPPL. The freeness of a license should be as divorced as possible from accidents of implementation. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 11:50, Mark Rafn wrote: On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote: The filename limitations are now optional; 5.a.1 is one possibility of three. As for 5.a.2 and the programmatic identification strings, can you elaborate? Considering that much of the wording in the license is mine (including 5.a.2), it's entirely possible that the parts you object to are because of my poor wording and are not a fundamental difference. 5.a.1 restricts filenames (worse, filenames which are part of an API). Right. 5.a.2 Prevents modifications on certain systems (those using a validating Base Format). No; it merely maintains that, if you have a validating Base Format, you must ensure that the status of the file is not misrepresented. How you ensure that is up to you. For example, you could rip out the validator, or disable it, or cause it to always fail, or cause it to validate something besides Standard LaTeX. Or you could change the file to say not standard. 5.a.3 doesn't apply without an additional grant of permission from somewhere else. True. None of these alternatives describe free software. I believe that 5.a.2 does, or intends to - though, again, I and the LaTeX Project are willing to discuss alternative wording. I take your point about 5b - if this is intended to refer to non-api strings like copyright information and such that may be spit out, I have no objection. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with this, as I recall from the previous discussion something about using these strings to validate modules. You might consider GPL-like wording for this. Well, in terms of being uncomfortable, I can't disagree with you. I still maintain my fundamental disagreement with the LaTeX Project on their goals. However, I'm sure they would consider the distictions we're making unimportant, which is fine. We're not trying to get one side or the other to capitulate; we're trying to bridge between the differing opinions. -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual files, but not the validation mechanism. Could you please imagine one? Remember to include in your imagined scenario that the unmodified Base Format will have a documented option to turn off validation. Why does the Base Format necessarily make it easy to turn off the validation? That is not in the license. But to give a simple example, what if the Base Format is running on a different machine? b. You must change any identification string in any modified file of the Derived Work to indicate clearly that the modified file is not part of The Work in its original form. b. For any modified file of the Derived Work, you must clearly indicate, preferably within the file itself, that the modified file is not part of the The Work in its original form. I don't think this would be acceptable to the LaTeX people, if you mean that it must be legal to keep the identification strings that are displayed to the user unchanged, thereby creating a derived work that actively tries to misrepresent itself as the original work. I do not think that the DFSG requires that such misrepresentations be legal, either. It depends on what the id strings do. If Mozilla were licensed under this license and the browser-id was hard-coded, that clause would make it illegal to spoof the browser id string and distribute the result. That is why I wrote clearly indicate. Specifying the notification too strongly inhibits freedom. If you like, you can strongly suggest modifying id-strings. Then you can LART those who keep it without a good reason. I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the context of LaTeX, not in the context of all of free software. We can't say that it is ok to use this license for LaTeX, but not for Mozilla, Apache, Samba and OpenSSH. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that *requiring* the use of the trust facilities is bad; I'm attempting to make it possible for LaTeX to be able to rely on the trust facilities in Standard LaTeX while maintaining the freedom to ignore it for non-Standard LaTeX. On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 19:13, Walter Landry wrote: That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual files, but not the validation mechanism. What the LaTeX people have to do is make it technically difficult for altered versions to validate. Not make it illegal for altered versions to validate. On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote: That's basically the idea. *If* there is a validation mechanism, and *if* the module uses the validation mechanism to assert it is Standard LaTeX, then when you change the file, you must ensure that the module does not validate as Standard LaTeX. This can be done by removing the validation mechanism from the base or by causing the file in question to not report itself as standard. It still depends on the platform that runs it to determine whether the modification is allowed. It may be that this is free when distributed with a base format that does no such validation and non-free otherwise. By the way, say I do this (I make a modification for use on my non-validating base format, and I don't change the validation signature because I don't have to under the last sentence of 5.a.2). And then give the file to my friend, who has a base format which DOES validate. Nothing prevents him using or distributing this file (which is just the Work I gave him, he's not modifying it), right? -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual files, but not the validation mechanism. Could you please imagine one? Sure: I take the Base Format and make a functional change to it, removing the option to turn off validation. Now I distribute this under your draft LPPL. But does that possibility make the original software non-free? Your argument seems to be that it is possible to make a derived version that is not free - but that possiblity exists for, say, the BSD license as well. No, but it makes my software distributed under the LPPL non free. It is not possible to distribute non-free software under the MIT/X11 license, for example. The freeness of a license should be as divorced as possible from accidents of implementation. Remember that our actual business on debian-legal is not to decide whether *licenses* are free, but whether actual pieces of *software* are free. As I said, I agree that it is possible to apply the LPPL draft in such a way that it results in non-freedom. However, I also believe that it is possible to apply it in a free way. The situation is not basically that much different from that of the GFDL. It's greatly different: the document content has no effect with the GFDL, only the license options chosen. Given that you and Jeff are proposing this license in isolation, without providing the code implementing the feature which makes this free, or even a good specification for it, I find it strange that you're now arguing that it's wrong to insist that a license be clearly free in isolation. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote: I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the context of LaTeX, not in the context of all of free software. We can't say that it is ok to use this license for LaTeX, but not for Mozilla, Apache, Samba and OpenSSH. Why not? We aren't proposing relicensing anything under this license except for LaTeX itself. Indeed, I would strongly advise against using this license for anything except for LaTeX-related things. That isn't relevant to whether LaTeX, licensed under this license, is free or not. -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:32, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual files, but not the validation mechanism. Could you please imagine one? Remember to include in your imagined scenario that the unmodified Base Format will have a documented option to turn off validation. Sure: I take the Base Format and make a functional change to it, removing the option to turn off validation. Now I distribute this under your draft LPPL. I am not clear how this would violate the license, or how this would make it DFSG-nonfree. (I'm also not clear why someone would want to do such a thing. Such a modified version could not be called Standard, meaning that the validator would be validating against a standard that did not exist.) The freeness of a license should be as divorced as possible from accidents of implementation. We talk a lot about *shoulds*. Let it be recognized by everyone that the LaTeX Project has a different set of *shoulds* than we do. I would prefer that they use the GPL, personally, but that isn't going to happen. -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote: On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote: That's basically the idea. *If* there is a validation mechanism, and *if* the module uses the validation mechanism to assert it is Standard LaTeX, then when you change the file, you must ensure that the module does not validate as Standard LaTeX. This can be done by removing the validation mechanism from the base or by causing the file in question to not report itself as standard. It still depends on the platform that runs it to determine whether the modification is allowed. It may be that this is free when distributed with a base format that does no such validation and non-free otherwise. I acknowledge that this may be true. Regarding LaTeX, is it? By the way, say I do this (I make a modification for use on my non-validating base format, and I don't change the validation signature because I don't have to under the last sentence of 5.a.2). And then give the file to my friend, who has a base format which DOES validate. Nothing prevents him using or distributing this file (which is just the Work I gave him, he's not modifying it), right? Use is OK. Remember that the license explicitly disavows any jurisdiction on use. Distributing is a different matter. Remember that the file must be combined with LaTeX, and the result cannot represent itself as Standard LaTeX when run. So, if you distribute the file combined with LaTeX, you could be in violation of the license. I can't see any problem with distributing it separately or as a patch, though. -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual files, but not the validation mechanism. Could you please imagine one? Sure: I take the Base Format and make a functional change to it, removing the option to turn off validation. Now I distribute this under your draft LPPL. But does that possibility make the original software non-free? Your argument seems to be that it is possible to make a derived version that is not free - but that possiblity exists for, say, the BSD license as well. The difference is that you be putting your modifications under a different license. Here, you're not changing the license, you're just modifying the code. The freeness of a license should be as divorced as possible from accidents of implementation. Remember that our actual business on debian-legal is not to decide whether *licenses* are free, but whether actual pieces of *software* are free. No. It is possible for people to interpret licenses to make them non-free. In that case, the software is really distributed under a different license. They can also avail themselves of parts of a license which make it non-free. But that is the same as having two different versions of a license: free and non-free. Some people choose the free version, and others choose a non-free one. A free license is a free license. As I said, I agree that it is possible to apply the LPPL draft in such a way that it results in non-freedom. However, I also believe that it is possible to apply it in a free way. The situation is not basically that much different from that of the GFDL. You and I can easily agree that it would be better, all other things being equal, to have licenses that could only be applied in ways that make the software they apply to free. However, it seems to be prohibitively complicated to word such a license such that it stays within the intersection of what the LaTeX people can live with and what is DFSG-free (at least according to my and Jeff's gut feelings). I don't think that it is prohibitively complicated. I think it is impossible. The LaTeX people can't live with a free license. There is too little control. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote: It still depends on the platform that runs it to determine whether the modification is allowed. It may be that this is free when distributed with a base format that does no such validation and non-free otherwise. On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote: I acknowledge that this may be true. Regarding LaTeX, is it? I don't know. Does the current Base Format do any such validation? If so (or if it becomes so), then it's a problem. If not, then this clause is unnecessary. Does this conflict with DFSG#9? This license effectively insists that the Base Format must be free software in order for the Work to be free. By the way, say I do this (I make a modification for use on my non-validating base format, and I don't change the validation signature because I don't have to under the last sentence of 5.a.2). And then give the file to my friend, who has a base format which DOES validate. Nothing prevents him using or distributing this file (which is just the Work I gave him, he's not modifying it), right? Distributing is a different matter. Remember that the file must be combined with LaTeX, and the result cannot represent itself as Standard LaTeX when run. So, if you distribute the file combined with LaTeX, you could be in violation of the license. For me, the file is combined with my non-validating base format (UnLaTeX). For him, it's combined with his standard latex. I'm not distributing the file combined with latex, and neither is he. We're both distributing the file by itself. He's allowed to redistribute under section 2, as he's not modifying it. I'm allowed to distribute under 5.a.2, as my Base Format does no such validation. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote: I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the context of LaTeX, not in the context of all of free software. We can't say that it is ok to use this license for LaTeX, but not for Mozilla, Apache, Samba and OpenSSH. Why not? We aren't proposing relicensing anything under this license except for LaTeX itself. If a program suddenly becomes non-free when you make a certain modification, then it was never free to begin with. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have attached a new working draft for the LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL) below. At first glance, everything looks fine except for section 5. 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 following conditions are met: a. You must ensure that each modified file of the Derived Work is clearly distinguished from the original file. This must be achieved by causing each such modified file to carry prominent notices detailing the nature of the changes, and by ensuring that at least one of the following additional conditions is met: This part is the main point of contention. At least one of the conditions must be DFSG-free. 1. The modified file is distributed with a different Filename than the original file. Not free enough, for reasons spelled out before. 2. If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run, and the Base Format provides a facility for such files to be validated as being original parts of The Work, then the file does not represent itself as being the unmodified original Work. This does not imply that the Base Format must provide such a facility; only that, if such a facility is available, it must be used in the normal way and it must enable the Base Format to validate as being modified. If the Base Format does not provide such a file validation facility, then the file may be modified without reference to such a facility. I think that this is not good enough. This sounds a lot like trusted computing. There are valid reasons to want to run untrusted versions. This is basically a restriction on what kinds of modification you can make. 3. The license notice for The Work specifies that the file may be modified without renaming, or the license notice for the Base Format specifies that files of this class (for example, files that are named a certain way) may be modified without renaming. This is just making it easy to add an exception to this section. Great if it is there, but it isn't always. b. You must change any identification string in any modified file of the Derived Work to indicate clearly that the modified file is not part of The Work in its original form. 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. Strings for other programs (think browser id-strings) must be modifiable to anything at all. Strings strictly for human consumption can be required to indicate that it is different. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run, and the Base Format provides a facility for such files to be validated as being original parts of The Work, then the file does not represent itself as being the unmodified original Work. This does not imply that the Base Format must provide such a facility; only that, if such a facility is available, it must be used in the normal way and it must enable the Base Format to validate as being modified. If the Base Format does not provide such a file validation facility, then the file may be modified without reference to such a facility. I think that this is not good enough. This sounds a lot like trusted computing. There are valid reasons to want to run untrusted versions. The point is not to prevent the running of untrusted versions, but to make sure that the Base Format would emit a warning to the user if it happens inadvertantly. I belive the plan was that the LaTeX people would amend their Base Format such that the validation code could be turned off in an easy and general manner for people who don't care about whether the code they run is the official original. (Such turning-off need not entail changes to document source or other LaTeX source files than the ones that are functionally changed; it could be achieved quite simply with a short wrapper shell script that turns validation off before inputting the user's document source). Also, the entire Debian package with LaTeX in it could be forked simply by changing, in one place, the Base Format code for validating (LaTeX) packages to be a no-op. After that is done, the insertion of formal this-is-not-an-original notices in files that one change is not a functional change anymore, but rather just a particular kind of prominent notice that the file has been changed. b. You must change any identification string in any modified file of the Derived Work to indicate clearly that the modified file is not part of The Work in its original form. Strings for other programs (think browser id-strings) must be modifiable to anything at all. Strings strictly for human consumption can be required to indicate that it is different. Knowing just a wee bit of what LaTeX uses identification strings for, I think this refers to the Hi, I'm package X, written by N.N notes that go into the human-readable output (and log file). It would render the whole 5.a.2 business void if the package name in the \ProvidesPackage header were consideret an identification string. I agree that the license draft could conceivable be *applied* in a way that makes it non-free (for example, if the Base Format's validation code defaulted to simply refusing to run tampered-with code instead of emitting warnings and offering the option to squelch these). I do am not convinced that this is the case for the intended application. -- Henning Makholm Gå ud i solen eller regnen, smil, køb en ny trøje, slå en sludder af med købmanden, puds dine støvler. Lev!
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeff Licquia said: I have attached a new working draft for the LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL) below. 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. Is this really saying that I can distribute The Work, or ANY Derived Work, under any license I choose, as long as 7a (which is really just a pointer to 5a, which says that if you're not the current maintainer, you must make modifications sufficiently obvious) is satisfied? For example, you could distribute The Work under a DWTFYW[0] license, plus the condition that it never be distributed as files named pig.* I'm curious what the reasoning is for this clause. --Joe [0]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200209/msg00032.html
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 02:06, Walter Landry wrote: At first glance, everything looks fine except for section 5. 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 following conditions are met: a. You must ensure that each modified file of the Derived Work is clearly distinguished from the original file. This must be achieved by causing each such modified file to carry prominent notices detailing the nature of the changes, and by ensuring that at least one of the following additional conditions is met: This part is the main point of contention. At least one of the conditions must be DFSG-free. Yup. 1. The modified file is distributed with a different Filename than the original file. Not free enough, for reasons spelled out before. Right. 2. If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run, and the Base Format provides a facility for such files to be validated as being original parts of The Work, then the file does not represent itself as being the unmodified original Work. This does not imply that the Base Format must provide such a facility; only that, if such a facility is available, it must be used in the normal way and it must enable the Base Format to validate as being modified. If the Base Format does not provide such a file validation facility, then the file may be modified without reference to such a facility. I think that this is not good enough. This sounds a lot like trusted computing. There are valid reasons to want to run untrusted versions. This is basically a restriction on what kinds of modification you can make. Yes, but note the if. It is perfectly legal to disable or remove the trust provisions of the code, in which case you have no obligation regarding the other parts of the code. I agree that *requiring* the use of the trust facilities is bad; I'm attempting to make it possible for LaTeX to be able to rely on the trust facilities in Standard LaTeX while maintaining the freedom to ignore it for non-Standard LaTeX. 3. The license notice for The Work specifies that the file may be modified without renaming, or the license notice for the Base Format specifies that files of this class (for example, files that are named a certain way) may be modified without renaming. This is just making it easy to add an exception to this section. Great if it is there, but it isn't always. Yup. b. You must change any identification string in any modified file of the Derived Work to indicate clearly that the modified file is not part of The Work in its original form. 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. Strings for other programs (think browser id-strings) must be modifiable to anything at all. Strings strictly for human consumption can be required to indicate that it is different. How would you word this differently to avoid this problem? -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Strings for other programs (think browser id-strings) must be modifiable to anything at all. Strings strictly for human consumption can be required to indicate that it is different. The distinction seems rather vague as machines can read messages originally intended for humans, and vice versa, however: Knowing just a wee bit of what LaTeX uses identification strings for, I think this refers to the Hi, I'm package X, written by N.N notes that go into the human-readable output (and log file). Yes. David This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Tue, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote: However, I can also predict that that the LaTeX people will likely stand their ground in places. Thank you for doing this, Jeff. It would be great to have LPPL which allows us to keep LaTeX in Debian. I really wish it wasn't a matter of standing ground, but it doesn't appear that any of the non-free requirements have been removed. It limits filenames, programmatic identification strings, and 5.a.2 provides an infinite amount of additional unchangeable api. This is a proprietary license, with some additional rights to modify within a limited scope. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
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. Is this really saying that I can distribute The Work, or ANY Derived Work, under any license I choose, as long as 7a (which is really just a pointer to 5a, which says that if you're not the current maintainer, you must make modifications sufficiently obvious) is satisfied? As I understand it, yes, this is the intent. For example, you could distribute The Work under a DWTFYW[0] license, plus the condition that it never be distributed as files named pig.* I believe this is correct. I'm curious what the reasoning is for this clause. I'll leave that to the LaTeX people to respond to, if they wish. -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 02:06, Walter Landry wrote: 2. If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run, and the Base Format provides a facility for such files to be validated as being original parts of The Work, then the file does not represent itself as being the unmodified original Work. This does not imply that the Base Format must provide such a facility; only that, if such a facility is available, it must be used in the normal way and it must enable the Base Format to validate as being modified. If the Base Format does not provide such a file validation facility, then the file may be modified without reference to such a facility. I think that this is not good enough. This sounds a lot like trusted computing. There are valid reasons to want to run untrusted versions. This is basically a restriction on what kinds of modification you can make. Yes, but note the if. It is perfectly legal to disable or remove the trust provisions of the code, in which case you have no obligation regarding the other parts of the code. I agree that *requiring* the use of the trust facilities is bad; I'm attempting to make it possible for LaTeX to be able to rely on the trust facilities in Standard LaTeX while maintaining the freedom to ignore it for non-Standard LaTeX. That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual files, but not the validation mechanism. What the LaTeX people have to do is make it technically difficult for altered versions to validate. Not make it illegal for altered versions to validate. snip b. You must change any identification string in any modified file of the Derived Work to indicate clearly that the modified file is not part of The Work in its original form. 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. Strings for other programs (think browser id-strings) must be modifiable to anything at all. Strings strictly for human consumption can be required to indicate that it is different. How would you word this differently to avoid this problem? b. For any modified file of the Derived Work, you must clearly indicate, preferably within the file itself, that the modified file is not part of the The Work in its original form. c. You must make ensure that any addresses for the reporting of errors in the Derived Work do not refer to the Current Maintainer's address in any way. The changes to b) are more important than the changes to c). Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
