subject:"License"

My work will be released under open source license, GPL 3.0. as I agrees
with Google Summer of Code 2013.
So my contributions to LyX are licensed under GPL v3.

*Thank you
*
*Hashini Senaratne
*

Re: License Details for GSoC Project: Horizontal scrollbar for tables and math for LyX

2013-07-21 Thread Pavel Sanda

Hashini Senaratne wrote:
 My work will be released under open source license, GPL 3.0. as I agrees
 with Google Summer of Code 2013.
 So my contributions to LyX are licensed under GPL v3.

The problem is that LyX is at the moment licensed under GPL 2.
If you agree with this licensing, could you please post 
the usual statement we usually ask for, e.g.
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg180286.html

This way it would be compatible with both GSoC and LyX.
Pavel

Re: License Details for GSoC Project: Horizontal scrollbar for tables and math for LyX

Modification for Licensing:

I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the GNU
General Public License, version 2 or later.

Thank you
Hashini Senaratne

License Details for GSoC Project: Horizontal scrollbar for tables and math for LyX

My work will be released under open source license, GPL 3.0. as I agrees
with Google Summer of Code 2013.
So my contributions to LyX are licensed under GPL v3.

*Thank you
*
*Hashini Senaratne
*

Re: License Details for GSoC Project: Horizontal scrollbar for tables and math for LyX

2013-07-21 Thread Pavel Sanda

Hashini Senaratne wrote:
> My work will be released under open source license, GPL 3.0. as I agrees
> with Google Summer of Code 2013.
> So my contributions to LyX are licensed under GPL v3.

The problem is that LyX is at the moment licensed under GPL 2.
If you agree with this licensing, could you please post 
the usual statement we usually ask for, e.g.
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg180286.html

This way it would be compatible with both GSoC and LyX.
Pavel

Re: License Details for GSoC Project: Horizontal scrollbar for tables and math for LyX

Modification for Licensing:

I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the GNU
General Public License, version 2 or later.

Thank you
Hashini Senaratne

Contribution license

2013-05-23 Thread Gioele Barabucci

I hereby license my contributions to LyX under the General Public 
License, Version 2 or any later version.


--
Gioele Barabucci gio...@svario.it

Contribution license

2013-05-23 Thread Gioele Barabucci

I hereby license my contributions to LyX under the General Public 
License, Version 2 or any later version.


--
Gioele Barabucci <gio...@svario.it>

Re: Open-source, Apple/Androind Stores Contributor License Agreements

2012-08-05 Thread Liviu Andronic

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Tommaso Cucinotta tomm...@lyx.org wrote:
 -) has anyone ever thought of licensing issues in the case of a possible
 port to an iPad, or perhaps Android ?

Such licensing issues would unlikely arise with Android-powered
devices. Beyond the official Google Market/Play, there are myriad
unofficial markets (Amazon, Aptoide, SlideME, etc.), but also a
genuine open-source solution.

F-Droid [1] is to Android what Debian is to Linux. It ships only
open-source apps and has some strict policies towards app inclusion
(e.g., even if a project calls itself open-source it won't publish a
version if the source-code is---even partially---not available). In
case someone comes with a port of LyX to Android, I see no reason
whatsoever why we couldn't distribute LyX-Android via F-Droid, without
any Apple-style licensing hiccups.
[1] http://f-droid.org/

I was wondering though on one thing. F-Droid ships an X Server [2].
I haven't investigated this much, but I'm wondering whether this might
allow Android to run a full-blown LyX. Comments?
[2] 
http://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=serverfdid=au.com.darkside.XServerfdpage=1

Regards
Liviu

Re: Open-source, Apple/Androind Stores & Contributor License Agreements

2012-08-05 Thread Liviu Andronic

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Tommaso Cucinotta  wrote:
> -) has anyone ever thought of licensing issues in the case of a possible
> port to an iPad, or perhaps Android ?
>
Such licensing issues would unlikely arise with Android-powered
devices. Beyond the official Google Market/Play, there are myriad
unofficial markets (Amazon, Aptoide, SlideME, etc.), but also a
genuine open-source solution.

F-Droid [1] is to Android what Debian is to Linux. It ships only
open-source apps and has some strict policies towards app inclusion
(e.g., even if a project calls itself "open-source" it won't publish a
version if the source-code is---even partially---not available). In
case someone comes with a port of LyX to Android, I see no reason
whatsoever why we couldn't distribute LyX-Android via F-Droid, without
any Apple-style licensing hiccups.
[1] http://f-droid.org/

I was wondering though on one thing. F-Droid ships an "X Server" [2].
I haven't investigated this much, but I'm wondering whether this might
allow Android to run a full-blown LyX. Comments?
[2] 
http://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=server=au.com.darkside.XServer=1

Regards
Liviu

Open-source, Apple/Androind Stores Contributor License Agreements

2012-08-04 Thread Tommaso Cucinotta


Hi all,

recently, in another open-source project where I wanted to contribute 
with a new feature, I've been asked to sign a Contributor License 
Agreement (CLA) that starts with this statement: You grant Mr. 
[OMITTED] the ability to use the Contributions in any way. Asking for 
clarifications I've been pointed out to an e-mail thread where it was 
explained that the project, which had always been under a GPL license, 
had to undertake such an action in order to allow the project to be 
hosted on the Apple App Store, so as to make it available on iPad 
devices, but that it was the intention of Mr. [OMITTED] to keep it 
open-source, free and licensed as GPL as usual. As an example, I've been 
referred to the case of VLC being removed from the App Store after a 
complaint of one of its prior developers, who claimed there was a 
violation of the original GPL license. In a sense, the CLA in this case 
was presented as a way to protect the software and its distribution from 
contributors who might attempt to make something similar in the future, 
limiting its availability to the worldwide community.


As I know on this list there are quite a number of Mac users and 
certainly Apple lovers, I'd like to hear your opinion above the above, 
and specifically:
-) has anyone ever thought of licensing issues in the case of a possible 
port to an iPad, or perhaps Android ?
-) are you aware of alternative ways (other than this kind of CLAs) to 
allow contributors to contribute to an open-source GPL project, and 
still retaining the possibility for someone to pack it into a nice 
package to be made available on some of these (Apple or Android or 
whatever) stores ?


Not being an Apple user, I don't even know if you can easily distribute 
an open-source application for these platforms without even having to 
publish them onto a store, but you can simply set-up a free repository 
that users can download new software from. At a glance, I'd be tempted 
to come to the conclusion that, if making a free software available on a 
specific platform needs to come to big compromises on the freedom of use 
of that software, then the solution is to not make it available on that 
specific platform.


Thanks very much,

Tommaso

Open-source, Apple/Androind Stores & Contributor License Agreements

2012-08-04 Thread Tommaso Cucinotta


Hi all,

recently, in another open-source project where I wanted to contribute 
with a new feature, I've been asked to sign a Contributor License 
Agreement (CLA) that starts with this statement: "You grant Mr. 
[OMITTED] the ability to use the Contributions in any way." Asking for 
clarifications I've been pointed out to an e-mail thread where it was 
explained that the project, which had always been under a GPL license, 
had to undertake such an action in order to allow the project to be 
hosted on the Apple App Store, so as to make it available on iPad 
devices, but that it was the intention of Mr. [OMITTED] to keep it 
open-source, free and licensed as GPL as usual. As an example, I've been 
referred to the case of VLC being removed from the App Store after a 
complaint of one of its prior developers, who claimed there was a 
violation of the original GPL license. In a sense, the CLA in this case 
was presented as a way to protect the software and its distribution from 
contributors who might attempt to make something similar in the future, 
limiting its availability to the worldwide community.


As I know on this list there are quite a number of Mac users and 
certainly Apple lovers, I'd like to hear your opinion above the above, 
and specifically:
-) has anyone ever thought of licensing issues in the case of a possible 
port to an iPad, or perhaps Android ?
-) are you aware of alternative ways (other than this kind of CLAs) to 
allow contributors to contribute to an open-source GPL project, and 
still retaining the possibility for someone to pack it into a nice 
package to be made available on some of these (Apple or Android or 
whatever) stores ?


Not being an Apple user, I don't even know if you can easily distribute 
an open-source application for these platforms without even having to 
publish them onto a store, but you can simply set-up a free repository 
that users can download new software from. At a glance, I'd be tempted 
to come to the conclusion that, if making a free software available on a 
specific platform needs to come to big compromises on the freedom of use 
of that software, then the solution is to not make it available on that 
specific platform.


Thanks very much,

Tommaso

license statement

2011-12-08 Thread Timo Kluck

Hi,

I just contributed an icon and some Dutch translation strings. For the record:

I hereby grant permission to release my contributions to LyX under the
license GPL, version 2 or later.

This also applies to all future contributions I may submit.

Best regards,
Timo Kluck

license statement

2011-12-08 Thread Timo Kluck

Hi,

I just contributed an icon and some Dutch translation strings. For the record:

I hereby grant permission to release my contributions to LyX under the
license GPL, version 2 or later.

This also applies to all future contributions I may submit.

Best regards,
Timo Kluck

License permission

2011-04-26 Thread Marcus Kriele


I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the
Gnu General Public License, version 2 or later.

Marcus Kriele

To date I have only fixed some sv* layout files (Bug 7301) which is targeted 
for 2.0.1.

License permission

2011-04-26 Thread Marcus Kriele


I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the
Gnu General Public License, version 2 or later.

Marcus Kriele

To date I have only fixed some sv* layout files (Bug 7301) which is targeted 
for 2.0.1.

License ia.po

2011-03-09 Thread g.sora

Hereby I grant permission to license my contributions to
LyX under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

 Giovanni Sora

License ia.po

2011-03-09 Thread g.sora

Hereby I grant permission to license my contributions to
LyX under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

 Giovanni Sora

Re: License for my contributions.

2011-01-24 Thread Pavel Sanda

Jim Rotmalm wrote:
 I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX
 under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

thanks, i added you to the contributors.
pavel

License for my contributions

2011-01-24 Thread Patrick Atamaniuk

I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX
under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

-- 
-
ataman...@frobs.net

Re: License for my contributions.

2011-01-24 Thread Pavel Sanda

Jim Rotmalm wrote:
> I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX
> under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

thanks, i added you to the contributors.
pavel

License for my contributions

2011-01-24 Thread Patrick Atamaniuk

I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX
under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

-- 
-
ataman...@frobs.net

License for my contributions.

2011-01-23 Thread Jim Rotmalm

I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX
under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

Jim

License for my contributions.

2011-01-23 Thread Jim Rotmalm

I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX
under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

Jim

License

2010-03-30 Thread Jack Desert

Dear Lyx-Devel:

I hereby grant permission for my LyX contributions to by licensed under the GNU 
General Public License, version 2 or later.

Sincerely,

Jack Desert



-- 
~~~
Jack Desert --Writer, Entrepeneur
Author and Spokesman: www.LetsEATalready.com
Software Developer:   http://GrooveTask.org
Email: jackdesert...@gmail.com
~~~

License

2010-03-30 Thread Jack Desert

Dear Lyx-Devel:

I hereby grant permission for my LyX contributions to by licensed under the GNU 
General Public License, version 2 or later.

Sincerely,

Jack Desert



-- 
~~~
Jack Desert --Writer, Entrepeneur
Author and Spokesman: www.LetsEATalready.com
Software Developer:   http://GrooveTask.org
Email: jackdesert...@gmail.com
~~~

License of el.po

2010-02-28 Thread Οδυσσέας Δαγκλής


Hereby I grant permission to license my contributions to
LyX under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

Ulysse Danglis

License of el.po

2010-02-28 Thread Οδυσσέας Δαγκλής


Hereby I grant permission to license my contributions to
LyX under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

Ulysse Danglis

permission to license my contributions

2009-07-22 Thread nick


Hello!

I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the 
GNU   
General Public License, version 2 or later.


With best regards,
Nick A. Gusev

Re: permission to license my contributions

2009-07-22 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller

nick wrote:
 Hello!

 I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the
 GNU  
 General Public License, version 2 or later.

 With best regards,
 Nick A. Gusev

Thanks, Nick. I committed your update to ru.po to the 1.6.4 branch now.

Jürgen

permission to license my contributions

2009-07-22 Thread nick


Hello!

I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the 
GNU   
General Public License, version 2 or later.


With best regards,
Nick A. Gusev

Re: permission to license my contributions

2009-07-22 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller

nick wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the
> GNU  
> General Public License, version 2 or later.
>
> With best regards,
> Nick A. Gusev

Thanks, Nick. I committed your update to ru.po to the 1.6.4 branch now.

Jürgen

The LyX license

2009-01-03 Thread Kornel Benko

Hi,
in case I have forgotten, which is very likely, since I did not contribute 
anything important ...

I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the Gnu 
General Public License, version 2 or later. 

Kornel
-- 
Kornel Benko
kornel.be...@berlin.de


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

The LyX license

2009-01-03 Thread Kornel Benko

Hi,
in case I have forgotten, which is very likely, since I did not contribute 
anything important ...

I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under the Gnu 
General Public License, version 2 or later. 

Kornel
-- 
Kornel Benko
kornel.be...@berlin.de


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

license


I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under
the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.


_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

license issue


I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under
the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Re: license

2008-07-28 Thread Pavel Sanda

hatim ali wrote:
 
 I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under
 the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

thanks, added.
pavel

Re: license issue

2008-07-28 Thread Uwe Stöhr


Many thanks,

I added you now to our CREDITS.

regards Uwe

license


I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under
the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.


_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

license issue


I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under
the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Re: license

2008-07-28 Thread Pavel Sanda

hatim ali wrote:
> 
> I hereby grant permission to license my contributions to LyX under
> the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.

thanks, added.
pavel

Re: license issue

2008-07-28 Thread Uwe Stöhr


Many thanks,

I added you now to our CREDITS.

regards Uwe

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]

2008-02-09 Thread Herbert Voss


Uwe Stöhr schrieb:
Jürgen, it seems that floatflt is readded in a few weeks. Should I 
commit my patch to switch to wrapfig anyway?


Uwe,
do you upload the package with a changed license to CTAN?
And, do me a favour: Mats has written several other
packages also with the no sell statement. Please ask him,
if we can change all his packages to the LPPL-license.
It seems, that he'll reply to your mails ... :-)

Herbert





 Original-Nachricht 
Betreff: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package
Datum: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:53:21 +0100
Von: Mats Dahlgren mats.dahlgren-at-sssk.se
Organisation: SSSK
An: Uwe Stöhr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Referenzen: 47A6298B.9090608-at-web.de

Dear Uwe,

Yes, you may remove the nosell declaration from the floatflt license.


Sincerely,
  mats d.

Uwe Stöhr wrote:

Dear Mr. Dahlgren,

the license of floatflt is the LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL). 
But you additionally state in the file flotflt.ins:


You may freely distribute the files floatflt.dtx and floatflt.ins, 
provided: 1. You do not take money for the distribution.


The problem is, that the two major LaTeX-distributions TeXLive and 
MiKTeX are non-profit, but are collecting money to pay the costs for 
webservers etc.. Due to the nosell statement, all distributions 
removed floatflt from their repositoris and thus it is no longer 
usable for standard LaTeX users. (see this discussion: 
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.live/15236)


I'm a developer of the LaTeX-frontend LyX (http://www.lyx.org) and we 
use floatflt. Due to its removal, our users can no longer compile the 
manuals or their documents containing wrapped floats.


So I'm asking if you would allow the distributions to collect money 
for their needs and remove the explicit nosell declaration from flotflt?


thanks and regards
Uwe Stöhr

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]


 Should I commit my patch to switch to wrapfig anyway?

 I'd say so, yes.

I put it in:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/22895
Maybe we should change a bit the status1.5.x entry - I leave this to you.

regards Uwe

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]


 do you upload the package with a changed license to CTAN?

I asked him if he could do this, but also offered him that I can do this if he 
don't find time.

 And, do me a favour: Mats has written several other
 packages also with the no sell statement. Please ask him,
 if we can change all his packages to the LPPL-license.

Done.

regards Uwe

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]

2008-02-09 Thread Herbert Voss


Uwe Stöhr schrieb:
Jürgen, it seems that floatflt is readded in a few weeks. Should I 
commit my patch to switch to wrapfig anyway?


Uwe,
do you upload the package with a changed license to CTAN?
And, do me a favour: Mats has written several other
packages also with the "no sell" statement. Please ask him,
if we can change all his packages to the LPPL-license.
It seems, that he'll reply to your mails ... :-)

Herbert





 Original-Nachricht 
Betreff: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package
Datum: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:53:21 +0100
Von: Mats Dahlgren 
Organisation: SSSK
An: Uwe Stöhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Referenzen: <47A6298B.9090608-at-web.de>

Dear Uwe,

Yes, you may remove the nosell declaration from the floatflt license.


Sincerely,
  mats d.

Uwe Stöhr wrote:

Dear Mr. Dahlgren,

the license of floatflt is the LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL). 
But you additionally state in the file flotflt.ins:


"You may freely distribute the files floatflt.dtx and floatflt.ins, 
provided: 1. You do not take money for the distribution".


The problem is, that the two major LaTeX-distributions "TeXLive" and 
"MiKTeX" are non-profit, but are collecting money to pay the costs for 
webservers etc.. Due to the "nosell" statement, all distributions 
removed floatflt from their repositoris and thus it is no longer 
usable for standard LaTeX users. (see this discussion: 
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.live/15236)


I'm a developer of the LaTeX-frontend LyX (http://www.lyx.org) and we 
use floatflt. Due to its removal, our users can no longer compile the 
manuals or their documents containing wrapped floats.


So I'm asking if you would allow the distributions to collect money 
for their needs and remove the explicit nosell declaration from flotflt?


thanks and regards
Uwe Stöhr

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]


>> Should I commit my patch to switch to wrapfig anyway?
>
> I'd say so, yes.

I put it in:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/22895
Maybe we should change a bit the status1.5.x entry - I leave this to you.

regards Uwe

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]


> do you upload the package with a changed license to CTAN?

I asked him if he could do this, but also offered him that I can do this if he 
don't find time.

> And, do me a favour: Mats has written several other
> packages also with the "no sell" statement. Please ask him,
> if we can change all his packages to the LPPL-license.

Done.

regards Uwe

[Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]

2008-02-08 Thread Uwe Stöhr

Jürgen, it seems that floatflt is readded in a few weeks. Should I commit my patch to switch to
wrapfig anyway?

Original-Nachricht
Betreff: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package
Datum: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:53:21 +0100
Von: Mats Dahlgren mats.dahlgren-at-sssk.se
Organisation: SSSK
An: Uwe Stöhr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Referenzen: 47A6298B.9090608-at-web.de

Dear Uwe,

Yes, you may remove the nosell declaration from the floatflt license.

Sincerely,
mats d.

Uwe Stöhr wrote:

Dear Mr. Dahlgren,

the license of floatflt is the LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL). But
you additionally state in the file flotflt.ins:

You may freely distribute the files floatflt.dtx and floatflt.ins,
provided: 1. You do not take money for the distribution.

The problem is, that the two major LaTeX-distributions TeXLive and
MiKTeX are non-profit, but are collecting money to pay the costs for
webservers etc.. Due to the nosell statement, all distributions
removed floatflt from their repositoris and thus it is no longer usable
for standard LaTeX users. (see this discussion:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.live/15236)

I'm a developer of the LaTeX-frontend LyX (http://www.lyx.org) and we
use floatflt. Due to its removal, our users can no longer compile the
manuals or their documents containing wrapped floats.

So I'm asking if you would allow the distributions to collect money for
their needs and remove the explicit nosell declaration from flotflt?

thanks and regards
Uwe Stöhr

--
mats dahlgren[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SSSK-webben: http://www.sssk.se/
Skridskonätet: http://www.skridsko.net/

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 09:39:24PM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
 Jürgen, it seems that floatflt is readded in a few weeks. Should I commit 
 my patch to switch to wrapfig anyway?

  Original-Nachricht 
 Betreff: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package
 Datum: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:53:21 +0100
 Von: Mats Dahlgren mats.dahlgren-at-sssk.se
 []
 Yes, you may remove the nosell declaration from the floatflt license.

So MikTeX and TeXLive both removed a fairly popular package because they
had a 'problem' with its license and did not even bother to ask the
author?

What kind of stupidity is that?

Andre'

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 10:45:15PM +0100, Herbert Voss wrote:
 Andre Poenitz schrieb:
 On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 09:39:24PM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
 Jürgen, it seems that floatflt is readded in a few weeks. Should I 
 commit my patch to switch to wrapfig anyway?

  Original-Nachricht 
 Betreff: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package
 Datum: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:53:21 +0100
 Von: Mats Dahlgren mats.dahlgren-at-sssk.se
 []
 Yes, you may remove the nosell declaration from the floatflt license.
 So MikTeX and TeXLive both removed a fairly popular package because they
 had a 'problem' with its license and did not even bother to ask the
 author?
 What kind of stupidity is that?

 the question is, who is stupid ... ;-)

 -- floatflt is not a popular package

Well, I am far from being a LaTeX power user, but I have used floatflt,
so it must be 'popular' ;-)

 -- I wrote do Mats several times, but never got an answer

Okokok..

Andre'

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]

2008-02-08 Thread Herbert Voss


Andre Poenitz schrieb:

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 09:39:24PM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Jürgen, it seems that floatflt is readded in a few weeks. Should I commit 
my patch to switch to wrapfig anyway?


 Original-Nachricht 
Betreff: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package
Datum: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:53:21 +0100
Von: Mats Dahlgren mats.dahlgren-at-sssk.se
[]
Yes, you may remove the nosell declaration from the floatflt license.


So MikTeX and TeXLive both removed a fairly popular package because they
had a 'problem' with its license and did not even bother to ask the
author?

What kind of stupidity is that?


the question is, who is stupid ... ;-)

-- floatflt is not a popular package
-- I wrote do Mats several times, but never got an answer

Herbert

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]

2008-02-08 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller

Uwe Stöhr wrote:
 Jürgen, it seems that floatflt is readded in a few weeks. Should I commit
 my patch to switch to wrapfig anyway?

I'd say so, yes.

Jürgen

[Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]

2008-02-08 Thread Uwe Stöhr

Jürgen, it seems that floatflt is readded in a few weeks. Should I commit my patch to switch to
wrapfig anyway?

Original-Nachricht
Betreff: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package
Datum: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:53:21 +0100
Von: Mats Dahlgren
Organisation: SSSK
An: Uwe Stöhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Referenzen: <47A6298B.9090608-at-web.de>

Dear Uwe,

Yes, you may remove the nosell declaration from the floatflt license.

Sincerely,
mats d.

Uwe Stöhr wrote:

Dear Mr. Dahlgren,

the license of floatflt is the LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL). But
you additionally state in the file flotflt.ins:

"You may freely distribute the files floatflt.dtx and floatflt.ins,
provided: 1. You do not take money for the distribution".

The problem is, that the two major LaTeX-distributions "TeXLive" and
"MiKTeX" are non-profit, but are collecting money to pay the costs for
webservers etc.. Due to the "nosell" statement, all distributions
removed floatflt from their repositoris and thus it is no longer usable
for standard LaTeX users. (see this discussion:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.live/15236)

I'm a developer of the LaTeX-frontend LyX (http://www.lyx.org) and we
use floatflt. Due to its removal, our users can no longer compile the
manuals or their documents containing wrapped floats.

So I'm asking if you would allow the distributions to collect money for
their needs and remove the explicit nosell declaration from flotflt?

thanks and regards
Uwe Stöhr

--
mats dahlgren[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SSSK-webben: http://www.sssk.se/
Skridskonätet: http://www.skridsko.net/

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 09:39:24PM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Jürgen, it seems that floatflt is readded in a few weeks. Should I commit 
> my patch to switch to wrapfig anyway?
>
>  Original-Nachricht 
> Betreff: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package
> Datum: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:53:21 +0100
> Von: Mats Dahlgren 
> []
> Yes, you may remove the nosell declaration from the floatflt license.

So MikTeX and TeXLive both removed a fairly popular package because they
had a 'problem' with its license and did not even bother to ask the
author?

What kind of stupidity is that?

Andre'

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 10:45:15PM +0100, Herbert Voss wrote:
> Andre Poenitz schrieb:
>> On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 09:39:24PM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>>> Jürgen, it seems that floatflt is readded in a few weeks. Should I 
>>> commit my patch to switch to wrapfig anyway?
>>>
>>>  Original-Nachricht ----
>>> Betreff: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package
>>> Datum: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:53:21 +0100
>>> Von: Mats Dahlgren 
>>> []
>>> Yes, you may remove the nosell declaration from the floatflt license.
>> So MikTeX and TeXLive both removed a fairly popular package because they
>> had a 'problem' with its license and did not even bother to ask the
>> author?
>> What kind of stupidity is that?
>
> the question is, who is stupid ... ;-)
>
> -- floatflt is not a popular package

Well, I am far from being a LaTeX power user, but I have used floatflt,
so it must be 'popular' ;-)

> -- I wrote do Mats several times, but never got an answer

Okokok..

Andre'

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]

2008-02-08 Thread Herbert Voss


Andre Poenitz schrieb:

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 09:39:24PM +0100, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Jürgen, it seems that floatflt is readded in a few weeks. Should I commit 
my patch to switch to wrapfig anyway?


 Original-Nachricht 
Betreff: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package
Datum: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:53:21 +0100
Von: Mats Dahlgren 
[]
Yes, you may remove the nosell declaration from the floatflt license.


So MikTeX and TeXLive both removed a fairly popular package because they
had a 'problem' with its license and did not even bother to ask the
author?

What kind of stupidity is that?


the question is, who is stupid ... ;-)

-- floatflt is not a popular package
-- I wrote do Mats several times, but never got an answer

Herbert

Re: [Fwd: Re: [floatflt] about the license of your floatflt LaTeX-package]

2008-02-08 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller

Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Jürgen, it seems that floatflt is readded in a few weeks. Should I commit
> my patch to switch to wrapfig anyway?

I'd say so, yes.

Jürgen

Re: License

2007-08-15 Thread Susana Barbosa


JMarc, you did trick me on doing the PT translation! But I'm glad you did 
it-:) I actually enjoyed doing it, so I hope I will be able to do another 
translation at the next year's meeting (although certainly not the polish 
one!)... and nagging Andre off the keyboard -:)

And thank you Martin and Liisa for the superb hospitality!

Susana

On Tuesday 14 August 2007, you wrote:
 Susana Barbosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  I grant permission to license any and all contributions I've made to
  LyX under the Gnu GPL version 2 or later.

 Thank you Susana. Will you ever forgive me?

 JMarc


-- 
Susana Barbosa, URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/susana.barbosa

Re: License


On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Andre Poenitz wrote:

PS: Martin: I really appreciated the hospitality - no matter how the 
complaints on too much too well tasting food sounded like. Please also 
tell Liisa.



From me too!


/C


--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: License

2007-08-15 Thread José Matos

On Wednesday 15 August 2007 16:21:31 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 From me too!

  I hate to say me too but in this case it is impossible to avoid. :-)

 /C

PS: I have been absent from discussion because in Bromarv port 25 was blocked 
and answering over the webmail interface is tedious and sloppy. :-)

-- 
José Abílio

Re: License


On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, José Matos wrote:

PS: I have been absent from discussion because in Bromarv port 25 was 
blocked and answering over the webmail interface is tedious and sloppy. 
:-)


Good luck with catching up on the discussions...

/C

--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: License

2007-08-15 Thread Susana Barbosa

JMarc, you did trick me on doing the PT translation! But I'm glad you did 
it-:) I actually enjoyed doing it, so I hope I will be able to do another 
translation at the next year's meeting (although certainly not the polish 
one!)... and nagging Andre off the keyboard -:)

And thank you Martin and Liisa for the superb hospitality!

Susana

On Tuesday 14 August 2007, you wrote:
> Susana Barbosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I grant permission to license any and all contributions I've made to
> > LyX under the Gnu GPL version 2 or later.
>
> Thank you Susana. Will you ever forgive me?
>
> JMarc

-- 
Susana Barbosa, URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/susana.barbosa

Re: License


On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Andre Poenitz wrote:

PS: Martin: I really appreciated the hospitality - no matter how the 
complaints on too much too well tasting food sounded like. Please also 
tell Liisa.



From me too!


/C


--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44   http://www.md.kth.se/~chr

Re: License

2007-08-15 Thread José Matos

On Wednesday 15 August 2007 16:21:31 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From me too!

  I hate to say "me too" but in this case it is impossible to avoid. :-)

> /C

PS: I have been absent from discussion because in Bromarv port 25 was blocked 
and answering over the webmail interface is tedious and sloppy. :-)

-- 
José Abílio

Re: License