Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas, you rightly say that only Debian can interpret DFSG. While I
agree with you in that, it seems that now you want to have the power
to interpret the word free. This is, in my opinion, a far-fetched
idea. TeX community used the word free for
I'd like to package RSAEURO 1.04i for inclusion in Debian GNU/Linux, but
there are provisions in the license grant which are incompatible with the
Debian Free Software Guidelines. See
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines. Unless a few small
changes are made to the license, I won't be
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 12:03:16AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Thomas, you rightly say that only Debian can interpret DFSG. While I
agree with you in that, it seems that now you want to have the power
to interpret the word free. This is, in my opinion, a far-fetched
It's already been
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now it seems that Thomas does not agree with this understanding and
says that I do not interpret DFSG correctly. It may be so. I am a
Debian *user*, not a Debian developer. However, you seem to
accept the second way to be valid.
The problem is that
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 01:38:27AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
(my reply is a subset of TB's; elided)
Completely new systems based on TeX code? Huh?
Glenn, if you do not know about such systems, this does not mean that
they do not exist, right?
Boris, if it's based on TeX code, it's
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 07 Aug 2002 22:48:36 -0700
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now it seems that Thomas does not agree with this understanding and
says that I do not interpret DFSG correctly. It may be so. I am a
Debian *user*, not a Debian
Consors France, à
la pointe de l'innovation en matière
Joe Drew wrote:
On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 16:12, Joe Moore wrote:
[them here refers to a GPL library linked to a GPL-incompatible work. The
link is performed by the end user, and the combined work is not distributed]
Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (According to the GPL
FAQ, it does)
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 08:00:43AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (According to the GPL
FAQ, it does)
Yes, but it's not _creating_ a combined work (or a modified work, or
whatever), but _distributing_ it that is the issue.
But that's _not_
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 02:05:04 -0400
From: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Completely new systems based on TeX code? Huh?
Glenn, if you do not know about such systems, this does not mean that
they do not exist, right?
Boris, if it's based on TeX code, it's not a completely new
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 11:30:16AM +0100, RSAEuro General wrote:
--On 08 August 2002 00:18 -0400 Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Hi, thanks for your mail. We would be interested in working something out
to allow the Internet release of RSAEuro to be included with Debian.
--On 08 August 2002 11:17 -0400 Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your comments, I will look at these over next few days and see
how we can modify the license to allow RSAEuro Internet release to be
included with Debian. It will take me a couple of days to work through the
* Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020808 00:16]:
TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document
exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installation is the
same as TeX on the e-print server or on my publisher's machine.
Of course, Debian is free to distribute
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:26:26 +0200
From: Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I will try to describe some worst-case scenario, to describe, what
it is
[the scenario is omitted].
You would be surprised, but this scenario is *not* imaginary. Actually
this is what really happened to me. I
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You see, I find this clause in a precedent. EC fonts are exactly this
-- a derivative of CM fonts under other names. The community that
accepted them *includes* a guy named Donald Knuth. You want the right
to interpret DFSG; don't you think Knuth
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 08 Aug 2002 12:19:03 -0700
accepted them *includes* a guy named Donald Knuth. You want the right
to interpret DFSG; don't you think Knuth deserves the right ot have a
say in interpretation
* Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020808 21:04]:
[the scenario is omitted].
You would be surprised, but this scenario is *not* imaginary. Actually
this is what really happened to me. I think this story might be
instructive in this discussion, so please bear with me.
The situation I tried
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 03:04:11PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:26:26 +0200
From: Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I will try to describe some worst-case scenario, to describe, what
it is
[the scenario is omitted].
You would be surprised, but this
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 08 Aug 2002 12:52:47 -0700
No. I want to say:
Knuth wanted to make TeX free, and he did. And the LaTeX people want
a *different* license from the TeX license--indeed, they want one that
is quite possibly non-free.
Because the LaTeX
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is all very interesting, but I am afraid it is outside of my
scope.
As you've said several times, and proved quite well, you're ignorant
about the issues. Please, therefore, stop muddling the discussion.
If you want to keep the notion that TeX is
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:58:40 +0200
From: Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A lunatic author can make it impossible to get a stable system, most
of the time even changes will not help to get a system which is also
feasable to be used with interchanged documents from and to new and
old
At 04:56 PM 8/8/02 -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Thomas, the wishes of Knuth need not to be divined. He expressed them
quite clearly. Why do not you read some FAQ, say,
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=TeXfuture
You think that's clear? The only thing pertinent to the argument, and
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:21:10 -0400
From: Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My goodness! Here's where all our experiences with dynamic
libraries pay off.
Do you remember how glibc team broke the compatibility between MINOR
versions? It was a jolly sight
For the love of all
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:21:10PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
My goodness! Here's where all our experiences with dynamic
libraries pay off.
For the love of all that is good in this world, when the LaTeX3
team finally releases it to the world: please include these two things:
1.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 08 Aug 2002 14:01:29 -0700
The CM fonts prohibit *all* modification--whether with changed names
or not--AFAICT. That makes them completely nonfree. It has nothing
to do with TeX, but with the CM fonts license.
This statement is not
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 17:22:14 -0400
From: Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I doubt it's that. I think it more likely that Thomas is arguing
against your insistence that TeX be removed wholly from Debian by
explaining his interpretation of the issues. In his interpretation,
TeX is
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:10:12 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:53:20AM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:33:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I repeat: the file renaming requirement is not DFSG-free, and you
wanting it to be so
On 04 Aug 2002 20:22:11 -0500, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 17:53, Lars Hellström wrote:
At 00.53 +0200 2002-08-03, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Since things like intention matter--and not just technical
mechanism--this is just FUD.
FUD ?
On what do you base
Lars Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a broad sense of intent perhaps, but I got clear impression Thomas had
something much more concrete and close in mind.
The GPL applies to anything that counts as a derivative work, with
some explicit exceptions (mere aggregation, for example).
Lars Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[1] On a completely off-topic matter, shouldn't that rather be your
wanting it to be so, with a possesive pronoun and the -ing form of the
verb? Perhaps someone natively English-speaking can clarify this; I suspect
it could be a matter on the lines of
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
If you think such a license is non-free because the newfoobar in the first
argument of \ProvidesPackage is functional then it would be inconsistent
to not declare as non-free also a license that only requires a version
number
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 05:22:14PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
I doubt it's that. I think it more likely that Thomas is arguing
against your insistence that TeX be removed wholly from Debian by
explaining his interpretation of the issues. In his interpretation,
TeX is DSFG-free, and in yours,
32 matches
Mail list logo
