New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0: http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/ This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down versions of Perl and Python are now included. Known bugs: -Screen updates too often; visible when browsing menus. Actually, the whole background is redrawn first, then the content. Any ideas what might cause this? John? -Some scripts don't work yet, but the most important ones do. -Terminal window always visible. This will remain for debugging purposed. -Dialog captions don't show. Qt non-commercial doesn't show anything that doesn't contain Qt. For those interested, give it a spin! Ruurd
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Ruurd == Ruurd Reitsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ruurd Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0: Ruurd http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/ Ruurd This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down Ruurd versions of Perl and Python are now included. Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license? Ruurd For those interested, give it a spin! I am impressed to see that this actually works :) JMarc
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Ruurd == Ruurd Reitsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ruurd Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0: Ruurd http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/ Ruurd This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down Ruurd versions of Perl and Python are now included. Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license? Ruurd For those interested, give it a spin! I am impressed to see that this actually works :) Indeed. I think that we should merge Ruurd's diff into cvs. It's pretty trivial and in someways actually improves readability ;-) -- Angus
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Indeed. I think that we should merge Ruurd's diff into cvs. It's pretty trivial and in someways actually improves readability ;-) This would be a very good idea indeed. Ruurd, maybe you can send your latest diff to the list? (am not sure the one on the website is the latest one) One thing I noticed with this version that it has some glitches with graphics. There seems to be a problem with the path conversion ( \ are being replaced with _) and things break if I want to scale down images. So for the moment I haven't been able to succesfully generate a dvi with a graph. Apart from this I think that this is very very cool. GUII and Qt are beginning to pay off as far as I am concerned. Ed.
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license? To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-) The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich? Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any new non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2. I am impressed to see that this actually works :) I was quite surprised myself, the first time I got it to compile. Ruurd
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license? To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-) The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich? Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any new non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2. I am impressed to see that this actually works :) I was quite surprised myself, the first time I got it to compile. I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as you put proper exclusion in the license. I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK (legal). Since lyx compiles on gcc 3.2, it should compile with little problem on bcc5.5 that I'm using. Cheers, Kuba Ober
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as you put proper exclusion in the license. I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK (legal). Since lyx compiles on gcc 3.2, it should compile with little problem on bcc5.5 that I'm using. Sounds good! Probably, the easiest way then would be to compile Qt with gcc 3.2 mingw, and just use that. That would simplify the whole process. At the moment, I'm using a wrapper that makes the intel compiler behave like gcc. Ruurd
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Andre Poenitz wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote: I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as you put proper exclusion in the license. I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK (legal). But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change the licence, wouldn't it? H. Makes the idea of having separate executables for a lyx daemon and lyx frontend, communicating though the lyxserver quite attractive. -- Angus
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license? To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-) The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich? Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any new non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2. No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue). I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that with what it says now. The problem is that that's just not what the law did on the initial release. Regardless of what the current license says, xforms does not have a special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting people to redistribute. *Any* library can be used in the same manner as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the GPL. But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me. hawk, esq.
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote: I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as you put proper exclusion in the license. I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK (legal). But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change the licence, wouldn't it? No. Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported license. Lyx has always had a big hole in the GPL that allows this, and the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors. hawk, esq. -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/\ ASCII ribbon campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of Xand postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors. so why not get it and fix the license?
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change the licence, wouldn't it? No. Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported license. Lyx has always had a big hole in the GPL that allows this, and the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors. So what do you think is the current valid license? GPL? (probably not) GPL with may be linked to xforms? GPL with may be linked to whatever? LGPL? Something entirely different? Of course I remember your complaints a while ago, but I was not too interested in licensing issues back than. So I remember you said something, but not what. Pointer to archive perhaps? Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license? To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-) The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich? Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any new non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2. No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue). I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that with what it says now. The problem is that that's just not what the law did on the initial release. Regardless of what the current license says, xforms does not have a special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting people to redistribute. *Any* library can be used in the same manner as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the GPL. But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me. hawk, esq. Dear, Hawk $ cvs annotate COPYING tells me that there have been only three changes to COPYING: 27-Sep-99 Lars 01-Aug-01 JMarc 06-Feb-03 myself I take it that you are talking about a separate file? Could you perhaps post the legally binding Licence to the list again because I for one would just like things done right. -- Angus
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change the licence, wouldn't it? No. Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported license. Lyx has always had a big hole in the GPL that allows this, and the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors. So what do you think is the current valid license? GPL? (probably not) GPL with may be linked to xforms? GPL with may be linked to whatever? It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied the law, and wrote the qualification to the license to describe what happened. I did *not* create the license; neither I nor anyone else (without consent of all developers ever) could possibly do this. The short version is that when he announced it as GPL, his actions contradicted this, and revoked the boilerplate language of the GPL that were inconsistent with his actions. Everyone that ever contributed code contributed under the actual license, not the GPL. However, as it held itself out as GPL, third parties would be able to take it as GPL (as the developers woudl be estopped from asserting the modified license). Of course I remember your complaints a while ago, but I was not too interested in licensing issues back than. So I remember you said something, but not what. Pointer to archive perhaps? My original writing came in response to the critical bug at debian (license impurity). Lars included the paragraphs sometime while I was at Iowa State, which means sometime between 1996-1999. I don't know when the change to the current, legally wrong, claim of license was made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it. (we don't actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do we?). hawk -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/\ ASCII ribbon campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of Xand postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: GPL? (probably not) GPL with may be linked to xforms? GPL with may be linked to whatever? It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied the law, and wrote the qualification to the license to describe what happened. I did *not* create the license; neither I nor anyone else (without consent of all developers ever) could possibly do this. Sure. But when the License _is_ may be linked to whatever, and all contributors contributed under this license as you imply, wouldn't that mean there is no problem linking it to Qt? made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it. (we don't actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do we?). None that I am aware of, unfortunately... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:43:18PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: GPL with may be linked to whatever? It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied the law, and wrote the qualification to the license to describe what happened. I did *not* create the license; neither I nor anyone else (without consent of all developers ever) could possibly do this. Sure. But when the License _is_ may be linked to whatever, and all contributors contributed under this license as you imply, wouldn't that mean there is no problem linking it to Qt? Exactly. made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it. (we don't actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do we?). None that I am aware of, unfortunately... Well, cvs should save us all :) hawk -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/\ ASCII ribbon campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of Xand postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: My original writing came in response to the critical bug at debian (license impurity). Lars included the paragraphs sometime while I was at Iowa State, which means sometime between 1996-1999. I don't know when the change to the current, legally wrong, claim of license was made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it. (we don't actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do we?). hawk My personnel mail archive is containing a mail from 10 Oct 1998, sent from Asger Alstrup Nielsen as follows... (Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Subject: Re: copyright problem) == start of cite My personal opinion is that this is a simply oversight and no big deal. To become legally correct all that is needed would be that you add the exemption of linking against xforms to your copyright. Or even better that you allow linking lyx against any non-free toolkit. That's it. Would it be a problem to add this line? After all there are some who want to remove lyx from Debian completely because if this minor glitch. I won't comment on that here. :-) I'm ready to change the license accordingly. Does anybody object to this change? After all, the license is technically invalid. P.S.: I'm no longer subsrcibed to this list so please CC me on your answer. Done. P.P.S: Are there plans for a GTK port? Or how far away are these? I heard you are preparing for a 1.0 version so I guess it will take some time. But it would be nice to be able to integrate it into the gnome. There have been a few voices that want to do a GTK port. Personally, I'm game for a GTK-- port, but not really the gnome part of it at first. So, yes, there are plans. However, 1.0.0 will be XForms only, and pre1.0.0 should be out in a couple of days, and the final maybe in a week, if things go as we'd like ;-) 1.2 will be multi-toolkit, but we are talking about maybe two months, according to Jean-Marc ;-) (I think, it's probably 6 months, and if I have to be realistic, maybe we'll finish it in Italy next year :-) Greets, Asger == end of cite Unfortunately it's one of the first mails I have. So it's a pointer to the correct time only. Greets, Stephan
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Edwin Leuven wrote: the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors. so why not get it and fix the license? Last time around, we figured that contacting them all would be an impossibility (we're not even sure who they are for some of the early stuff). hawk -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/\ ASCII ribbon campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of Xand postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:16:27AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: Last time around, we figured that contacting them all would be an impossibility (we're not even sure who they are for some of the early stuff). For some of the early stuff it's not that interesting as certain pieces don't live anymore. It's non-trivial to figure out who has done what, though... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:16:16AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue). I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that with what it says now. The problem is that that's just not what the law did on the initial release. This may well be true, but personally I'd much rather go with the standard wording decided by the FSF's lawyers (and used in several other projects) than go it alone. Regardless of what the current license says, xforms does not have a special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting people to redistribute. *Any* library can be used in the same manner as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the GPL. Can you explain why ? But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me. I did not know that you'd done this when I suggested moving to the FSF text some time ago, and nobody told me - I'm sorry about this, but you cannot really blame me for not being aware of it. regards, john
New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0: http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/ This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down versions of Perl and Python are now included. Known bugs: -Screen updates too often; visible when browsing menus. Actually, the whole background is redrawn first, then the content. Any ideas what might cause this? John? -Some scripts don't work yet, but the most important ones do. -Terminal window always visible. This will remain for debugging purposed. -Dialog captions don't show. Qt non-commercial doesn't show anything that doesn't contain Qt. For those interested, give it a spin! Ruurd
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
> "Ruurd" == Ruurd Reitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ruurd> Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0: Ruurd> http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/ Ruurd> This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down Ruurd> versions of Perl and Python are now included. Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license? Ruurd> For those interested, give it a spin! I am impressed to see that this actually works :) JMarc
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> "Ruurd" == Ruurd Reitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Ruurd> Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0: > > Ruurd> http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/ > > Ruurd> This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down > Ruurd> versions of Perl and Python are now included. > > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license? > > Ruurd> For those interested, give it a spin! > > I am impressed to see that this actually works :) Indeed. I think that we should merge Ruurd's diff into cvs. It's pretty trivial and in someways actually improves readability ;-) -- Angus
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
> Indeed. I think that we should merge Ruurd's diff into cvs. It's pretty > trivial and in someways actually improves readability ;-) This would be a very good idea indeed. Ruurd, maybe you can send your latest diff to the list? (am not sure the one on the website is the latest one) One thing I noticed with this version that it has some glitches with graphics. There seems to be a problem with the path conversion ( \ are being replaced with _) and things break if I want to scale down images. So for the moment I haven't been able to succesfully generate a dvi with a graph. Apart from this I think that this is very very cool. GUII and Qt are beginning to pay off as far as I am concerned. Ed.
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
"Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license? To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-) The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich? Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any new non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2. > I am impressed to see that this actually works :) I was quite surprised myself, the first time I got it to compile. Ruurd
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the > > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license? > > To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-) > The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for > xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich? > Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any > new non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a > while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2. > > > I am impressed to see that this actually works :) > > I was quite surprised myself, the first time I got it to compile. I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as you put proper exclusion in the license. I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK (legal). Since lyx compiles on gcc 3.2, it should compile with little problem on bcc5.5 that I'm using. Cheers, Kuba Ober
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
> I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as > you put proper exclusion in the license. > > I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK > (legal). > > Since lyx compiles on gcc 3.2, it should compile with little problem on bcc5.5 > that I'm using. Sounds good! Probably, the easiest way then would be to compile Qt with gcc 3.2 mingw, and just use that. That would simplify the whole process. At the moment, I'm using a wrapper that makes the intel compiler behave like gcc. Ruurd
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote: >> I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long >> as you put proper exclusion in the license. >> >> I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK >> (legal). > > But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change > the licence, wouldn't it? H. Makes the idea of having separate executables for a lyx daemon and lyx frontend, communicating though the lyxserver quite attractive. -- Angus
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote: > "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the > > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license? > To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-) > The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for > xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich? > Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any new > non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for a > while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2. No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue). I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that with what it says now. The problem is that that's just not what the law did on the initial release. Regardless of what the current "license" says, xforms does not have a special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting people to redistribute. *Any* library can be used in the same manner as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the GPL. But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me. hawk, esq.
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote: > > I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as > > you put proper exclusion in the license. > > I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK > > (legal). > But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change > the licence, wouldn't it? No. Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported license. Lyx has always had a big hole in the GPL that allows this, and the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors. hawk, esq. -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/"\ ASCII ribbon campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of Xand postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
> the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors. so why not get it and fix the license?
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: > > But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change > > the licence, wouldn't it? > > No. Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported > license. Lyx has always had a big hole in the GPL that allows this, and > the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors. So what do you think is the current valid license? GPL? (probably not) GPL with "may be linked to xforms"? GPL with "may be linked to whatever"? LGPL? Something entirely different? Of course I remember your complaints a while ago, but I was not too interested in licensing issues back than. So I remember you said something, but not what. Pointer to archive perhaps? Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote: >> "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the >> > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license? > >> To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-) >> The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for >> xforms. The question is, who should do this? Matthias Ettrich? >> Anyway, it's a bit of a dead end, since Trolltech won't be releasing any >> new non-commercial Qt libs. On the other hand, it will probably work for >> a while. Qt3 is not that different from Qt2. > > No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue). > I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that > with what it says now. The problem is that that's just not what the law > did on the initial release. > > Regardless of what the current "license" says, xforms does not have a > special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put > aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting > people to redistribute. *Any* library can be used in the same manner > as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the > GPL. > > But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this > right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me. > > hawk, esq. Dear, Hawk $ cvs annotate COPYING tells me that there have been only three changes to COPYING: 27-Sep-99 Lars 01-Aug-01 JMarc 06-Feb-03 myself I take it that you are talking about a separate file? Could you perhaps post the legally binding Licence to the list again because I for one would just like things done right. -- Angus
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: > > > But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change > > > the licence, wouldn't it? > > No. Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported > > license. Lyx has always had a big hole in the GPL that allows this, and > > the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors. > So what do you think is the current valid license? > GPL? (probably not) > GPL with "may be linked to xforms"? > GPL with "may be linked to whatever"? It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied the law, and wrote the qualification to the license to describe what happened. I did *not* create the license; neither I nor anyone else (without consent of all developers ever) could possibly do this. The short version is that when he announced it as GPL, his actions contradicted this, and revoked the "boilerplate" language of the GPL that were inconsistent with his actions. Everyone that ever contributed code contributed under the actual license, not the GPL. However, as it held itself out as GPL, third parties would be able to take it as GPL (as the developers woudl be "estopped" from asserting the modified license). > Of course I remember your complaints a while ago, but I was not too > interested in licensing issues back than. So I remember you said something, > but not what. Pointer to archive perhaps? My original writing came in response to the "critical bug" at debian (license impurity). Lars included the paragraphs sometime while I was at Iowa State, which means sometime between 1996-1999. I don't know when the change to the current, legally wrong, claim of license was made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it. (we don't actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do we?). hawk -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/"\ ASCII ribbon campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of Xand postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: > > GPL? (probably not) > > GPL with "may be linked to xforms"? > > GPL with "may be linked to whatever"? > > It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied > the law, and wrote the qualification to the license to describe what > happened. > > I did *not* create the license; neither I nor anyone else (without > consent of all developers ever) could possibly do this. Sure. But when the License _is_ "may be linked to whatever", and all contributors contributed under this license as you imply, wouldn't that mean there is no problem linking it to Qt? > made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it. (we don't > actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do > we?). None that I am aware of, unfortunately... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:43:18PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: > > > GPL with "may be linked to whatever"? > > It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied > > the law, and wrote the qualification to the license to describe what > > happened. > > I did *not* create the license; neither I nor anyone else (without > > consent of all developers ever) could possibly do this. > Sure. > But when the License _is_ "may be linked to whatever", and all contributors > contributed under this license as you imply, wouldn't that mean there is > no problem linking it to Qt? Exactly. > > made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it. (we don't > > actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do > > we?). > None that I am aware of, unfortunately... Well, cvs should save us all :) hawk -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/"\ ASCII ribbon campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of Xand postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: My original writing came in response to the "critical bug" at debian (license impurity). Lars included the paragraphs sometime while I was at Iowa State, which means sometime between 1996-1999. I don't know when the change to the current, legally wrong, claim of license was made, but I suspect if we checkout from 2000 we'll find it. (we don't actually have a searchable mailing list archive from the late 90's, do we?). hawk My personnel mail archive is containing a mail from 10 Oct 1998, sent from Asger Alstrup Nielsen as follows... (Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Subject: Re: copyright problem) == start of cite > My personal opinion is that this is a simply oversight and no big deal. > To become legally correct all that is needed would be that you add the > exemption of linking against xforms to your copyright. Or even better > that you allow linking lyx against any non-free toolkit. > That's it. > > Would it be a problem to add this line? After all there are some who > want to remove lyx from Debian completely because if this minor glitch. > I won't comment on that here. :-) I'm ready to change the license accordingly. Does anybody object to this change? After all, the license is technically invalid. > P.S.: I'm no longer subsrcibed to this list so please CC me on your > answer. Done. > P.P.S: Are there plans for a GTK port? Or how far away are these? I > heard you are preparing for a 1.0 version so I guess it will take some > time. But it would be nice to be able to integrate it into the gnome. There have been a few voices that want to do a GTK port. Personally, I'm game for a GTK-- port, but not really the gnome part of it at first. So, yes, there are plans. However, 1.0.0 will be XForms only, and pre1.0.0 should be out in a couple of days, and the final maybe in a week, if things go as we'd like ;-) 1.2 will be multi-toolkit, but we are talking about maybe two months, according to Jean-Marc ;-) (I think, it's probably 6 months, and if I have to be realistic, maybe we'll finish it in Italy next year :-) Greets, Asger == end of cite Unfortunately it's one of the first mails I have. So it's a pointer to the correct time only. Greets, Stephan
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Edwin Leuven wrote: > > the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors. > so why not get it and fix the license? Last time around, we figured that contacting them all would be an impossibility (we're not even sure who they are for some of the early stuff). hawk -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/"\ ASCII ribbon campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of Xand postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:16:27AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: > Last time around, we figured that contacting them all would be an > impossibility (we're not even sure who they are for some of the early > stuff). For some of the early stuff it's not that interesting as certain pieces don't live anymore. It's non-trivial to figure out who has done what, though... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
Re: New LyX Win32 build 1.3.0
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:16:16AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: > No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue). > I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that > with what it says now. The problem is that that's just not what the law > did on the initial release. This may well be true, but personally I'd much rather go with the standard wording decided by the FSF's lawyers (and used in several other projects) than go it alone. > Regardless of what the current "license" says, xforms does not have a > special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put > aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting > people to redistribute. *Any* library can be used in the same manner > as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the > GPL. Can you explain why ? > But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this > right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me. I did not know that you'd done this when I suggested moving to the FSF text some time ago, and nobody told me - I'm sorry about this, but you cannot really blame me for not being aware of it. regards, john
