(Please CC me on answers: I'm not a member of debian-legal.)
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Concern 1: requiring a change of filename in case of modification
>in case of distribution
> =
>
> this seems t
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:35:42 +1200
> From: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Take my company. There are 4 of us working there. I'm quite likely to want
> to make a small modification to some part of LaTeX to make it behave how I
> want it to. It's been a long time since I used LaTeX heav
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 12:36:59AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> single person is envolved. However the sysadmin case is on the other side of
> the fence (sorry Nick to disappoint you, just saw your post :-) as it
> typically means providing a "non-latex" under the label of "latex" to
> unsuspe
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 21 Jul 2002 22:59:26 -0500
>
> It's crucial to your point, therefore, that there not be a distinction
> between running the program from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin. I
> think we've shown that this isn't the case, since a sysadmin does not
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 22:40, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 21 Jul 2002 20:34:32 -0500
>
> > You're right, and there may be software you can't install on your AFS
> > drive in this instance, because you're "distributing" software to those
> > thousand co
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 21 Jul 2002 20:34:32 -0500
> You're right, and there may be software you can't install on your AFS
> drive in this instance, because you're "distributing" software to those
> thousand computers. This is irrespective of whether any of those
> thousa
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 20:18, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 21 Jul 2002 18:07:50 -0500
> >
> > On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:49, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > > This is the root of our disagreement. I think that a sysadmin that put
> > > a changed copy of latex.f
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 17:24, William F Hammond wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Let's imagine something like LaTeX licensed under something like the
> > LPPL, and let's also assume that I'm going to hack it.
> >
> > So, I edit "article.sty". OK, no problem; just rename it t
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 21 Jul 2002 18:07:50 -0500
>
> On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:49, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > This is the root of our disagreement. I think that a sysadmin that put
> > a changed copy of latex.fmt in the $TEXFORMATS directory to be used by
> > his users,
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 15:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The discussion between Jeff and me turned up another main concern,
> > regarding the distribution of modified works. In his opinion (which I now
> > suspect holds for at least those jurisdictio
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:56, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> It is informative to see what the FSF says about the LPPL
> (from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html):
[very interesting analysis snipped]
> Note: These comments are based on version 1.2 (3 Sep 1999) of the
> LPPL.
Note that
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:49, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > Suppose I take a GPL'ed program, change it and put the closed version
> > > (sans sources) on my own machine. I did not violate GPL yet. Now
> > > su
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 15:30, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Thanks Boris and Frank for explanations of how some forks could be made.
> It's a delightful edge case for us, and gives Debian a chance to reflect
> on where the lines are and just how much liberty is required in order to
> be "free enough".
>
>
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 08:32:27PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Could you give me your advice on this patend
> problem ? I have not the connection time to
> investigate this issue properly and anyway this
> must be discussed here.
The JPEG group's opinion might be of interest here.
It's at: http
Mark Rafn writes:
> Thanks Boris and Frank for explanations of how some forks could be made.
> It's a delightful edge case for us, and gives Debian a chance to reflect
> on where the lines are and just how much liberty is required in order to
> be "free enough".
delightful? not really whe
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 04:20, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> btw, would it be acceptable to you if LPPL would say,
>
> in case of modification you either
>
> - do what LPPL asks for now (i.e. rename ...), or
>
> - you keep the LaTeX package file name but replace
>
> \ProvidesPackage{varioref}
>
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 17:25, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 05:11:07PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this
> > now.
>
> Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license?
> (You can change "ls" all
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:25:42AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this
> > now.
>
> Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license?
> (You can change "ls" all you want as long as you rename the binary)
It seem
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't follow the allusion to cascading change requirements.
> >
> > Could someone pose a simple example? Or was the cascade a nightmare?
>
> OK, here's what I was thinking.
>
> Let's imagine something like LaTeX licensed under something like the
>
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 05:11:07PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this
> now.
Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license?
(You can change "ls" all you want as long as you rename the binary)
Richard Braakman
--
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 05:49:34PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> This is the root of our disagreement. I think that a sysadmin that put
> a changed copy of latex.fmt in the $TEXFORMATS directory to be used by
> his users, *distributes* a changed LaTeX. You think he does not; the
> problem with yo
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 18:41, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:15:42AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > i have heard that statement before, but to me it doesn't follow from DSFG 4
> > and others (regulars on this list I presume) have in my understanding also
> > expressed that. No
Henning Makholm writes:
> > [example of the complex way removed]
>
> I thought I argued in quite a level of detail why it is the *only* way
> that is allowed by the renaming rule. If you think my arguments are
> wrong, could you please explain why in more detail than just
> dismissing them a
Hi,
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 22:30, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > Note that in the above, `distribution' of a file means making the file
> > available to others by any means. This includes, for instance,
> > installing the file on any machine in such a way that the file is
> > accessible by users other than
> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Suppose I take a GPL'ed program, change it and put the closed version
> > (sans sources) on my own machine. I did not violate GPL yet. Now
> > suppose that I make the drive NFS-exportable and encourage my pa
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've had the impression that the remaining life of the patent is really
> quite short, too, and that they're going after people with money while
> they can.
The European counterpart might live much longer. It was granted in
1994. Even if the counter st
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Therefore, a Debian archive outside jurisdictions where this patent is
> enforceable is the proper home for the software if the patent is
> enforceable against libjpeg62, not non-free.
Japanese and European counterparts exist, see:
http://swpat.ffii
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Henning Makholm writes:
>
> > > I'm sure it will be possible to find a way to *allow* a reasonably
> > > painless fork without actually encouraging it.
>
> > but we do encourage fork!
>
> I think we have a la
> > Note that in the above, `distribution' of a file means making the file
> > available to others by any means. This includes, for instance,
> > installing the file on any machine in such a way that the file is
> > accessible by users other than yourself.
> > From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Distributing GPL'ed software in object code or executable form, either
> as CD image through the Internet or as pressed or burned CD, requires
> the distributor (commercial or non-commercial doesn't seem to matter)
> to advise the person, who receives t
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > probably none (definitely not for the 72 individual font names.
> > Nevertheless
> > Debian wouldn't get a good press if it would generate modified versions of
> > such programs and fonts and distributed them unde
I'm trying a summary here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Distributing GPL'ed software in object code or executable form, either
as CD image through the Internet or as pressed or burned CD, requires
the distributor (commercial or non-commercial doesn't seem to matter)
to advise the person, who r
> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Note that in the above, `distribution' of a file means making the file
> > available to others by any means. This includes, for instance,
> > installing the file on any machine in such a way that the file
Thanks Boris and Frank for explanations of how some forks could be made.
It's a delightful edge case for us, and gives Debian a chance to reflect
on where the lines are and just how much liberty is required in order to
be "free enough".
My current personal opinion is that the individual filena
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> probably none (definitely not for the 72 individual font names. Nevertheless
> Debian wouldn't get a good press if it would generate modified versions of
> such programs and fonts and distributed them under the original names.
Please avoid the falla
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 20 Jul 2002 23:32:48 +0200
>
> I still think it can be viewed as excessive. Let me explain.
>
> Imagine that I want to create a typesetting system that behaves just
> like LaTeX on all input files, except that input files that say
> something
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 02:37:46PM -0700, David Starner wrote:
> So there's allegedly a patent on JPEG. I think someone came up with a
> patent on run-length encoding at one point. Legally, moving it to
> non-free is a lousy cop-out, which I don't think changes our liability
> one bit. IMO, for the
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 20 Jul 2002 20:15:30 +0200
>
> > - to fork you have to rename every package under LPPL
>
> > all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by now)
>
> It has been *asserted* over and over again that this is wrong, but
> that assertati
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 08:32:27PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello developers,
>
> Could you give me your advice on this patend
> problem ? I have not the connection time to
> investigate this issue properly and anyway this
> must be discussed here.
>
> Please CC me, thanks!
If true, this r
So there's allegedly a patent on JPEG. I think someone came up with a
patent on run-length encoding at one point. Legally, moving it to
non-free is a lousy cop-out, which I don't think changes our liability
one bit. IMO, for the time being, we should just ignore it, until it's
clear it's going to
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > i think so yes, for example, Don's home page
> > other may be able to refer you to more explicit quotes.
>
> Knuth's home page is large. Do you have a specific reference?
sorry, seems i have thrown you a re
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > Imagine that I want to create a typesetting system that behaves just
> > like LaTeX on all input files, except that input files that say
> > something like
> > \documentclass[12pt]{article}
> > will actually be
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i think so yes, for example, Don's home page
> other may be able to refer you to more explicit quotes.
Knuth's home page is large. Do you have a specific reference?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - reads in files (and ignores their content)
> - writes out two or three files by dumping the results expected by TRIP.TEX
>
> then i only have to feel happy about it to be able to call it TeX. :-) in
> other words you can always trip wordings (as
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> by producing "special-non-latex" you are required to change its identifaction
> strings which means that this program will identify itself to the user as
> "not-latex" no matter what it is called as a debian package. Of course by
> packaging it with a
Hello developers,
Could you give me your advice on this patend
problem ? I have not the connection time to
investigate this issue properly and anyway this
must be discussed here.
Please CC me, thanks!
- Forwarded message from Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROT
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 11:01, William F Hammond wrote:
>
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who seems to be the Debian spokesman,
Uh, oh. Does this mean I get blamed for stuff now? :-)
> writes in debian-legal@lists.debian.org at 19 Jul 2002 16:09:59 -0500,
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-lega
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > I'm sure it will be possible to find a way to *allow* a reasonably
> > painless fork without actually encouraging it.
> but we do encourage fork!
I think we have a language program, then. As far as I understand, the
w
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:29:36AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
>
> > > Indeed, I can do two things:
>
> > > Make a derivate work of latex, which is variant, and called
> > > "special-non-latex".
>
> > > Make a package wi
Branden & Bill
> > P.S. Just because present LPPL might not conform to DFSG does not
> > mean that LaTeX is not free.
true Bill, but irrelevent in this discussion as Branden correctly points out
below
> The LaTeX Project is at liberty to represent the LPPL as a "free"
> license to whoever i
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> >From tripman.tex:
>
> If somebody claims to have a correct implementation of \TeX, I will not
> believe it until I see that \.{TRIP.TEX} is translated properly.
> I propose, in fact, that a program must meet two criteria before it
> can justifiably be
Walter Landry writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - to get support from the kernel for a new package you have to fork the
> >kernel
> > - when modifying all future names pile up as being unchangeable
> >
> > all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 11:31:19AM -0400, William F Hammond wrote:
> Perhaps it just comes down to nuances of language.
I don't think so. That is, I don't think there is any "nuance"
involved.
> LaTeX is a _project_.
For the purposes of Debian's licensing discussion, LaTeX is a
copyrighted work
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 07:27:49PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> I afraid this is not -- so at least for some jurisdictions. I am not a
> lawyer, but it happened that I have been closely watching a lawsuit in
> Russia, where the plaintiff alleged that title is an important part of
> a copyrighted
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - to get support from the kernel for a new package you have to fork the
>kernel
> - when modifying all future names pile up as being unchangeable
>
> all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by now)
I must be thick headed. How can
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > Indeed, I can do two things:
> >
> > Make a derivate work of latex, which is variant, and called
> > "special-non-latex".
> >
> > Make a package with no derivatives of latex at all, which contains a
> > single
56 matches
Mail list logo
