Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
i don't think the wording is good, but that aside, would that lift
your
concern?
I'd prefer just saying that the documentation must make clear what the
provenance is.
The problem is still one of context.
If there is some other
Walter Landry writes:
Actually, this is a good reason for someone to use the standard
facility, not for the license to require the standard facility. All
that you really care about is that the information gets to the user,
not how it gets to them.
yes and no. we care that the
___
/ Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Java Transaction API
| should be enough for the short description: `from SunTM' will be
| clear in the copyright file, and JTA is redundant (and not so self
| explanatory).
Done, thanks :-)
___
/ Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 11:57, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
| On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 11:36:30AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
| Description : JTA is the JavaTM
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:59:07PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
I don't think that it is prohibitively complicated. I think it is
impossible. The LaTeX people can't live with a free license. There
is too little control.
This conclusion seems hasty.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 01:55:44PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
well, I tried to give a rewrite in the other post (which can surely be
improved) --- but it is certainly something that is passed through the program
to reach the user, but this is also true for, say, GPL 2c.
Just FYI, but the
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:39:44AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Right, but as I just posted a little bit ago, a restriction to a problem
domain is just one type of specificity. See the GPL, section 2c, for
another, one that I think is appropriate.
Note that 2c is not terribly popular among some
On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 12:01:20PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The DFSG will accept a ban on making false claims of authorship to
humans, but not a ban on making such false claims to a program.
Yes; exactly my understanding of freedom to modify.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 09:11:34AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
AFAIU, what the authors of the LPPL draft is trying to express is
nothing more or less than
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
that it isn't
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry writes:
Actually, this is a good reason for someone to use the standard
facility, not for the license to require the standard facility. All
that you really care about is that the information gets to the user,
not how it gets
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:08:37PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
for the sake of an argument, what about
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
that it isn't the original package
2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
that it isn't Standard LaTeX.
Would it be possible to use GPL wording for this? The ability NOT to do
this when written for non-interactive use is important.
Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording
12 matches
Mail list logo
