Branden,
Whew! I apologize again for the stupidly long delay. Thank you again
for your boundless patience.
thank you (even though as you state later than we all hoped), your comments
look as valuable as the first set
frank
Branden Robinson wrote:
Argh, I gotta stop here (legalese fatigue, and yes, I know I do more
than my share of causing it in others). I will follow-up soon with my
comments on the remaining two major sections.
I hope you find the above analysis useful.
most likely from brief scanning ---
the license change status by next month since then there will be a new
release of LaTeX.
Thanks a lot; I greatly appreciate your patience and that of Frank
Mittelbach and numerous others in the LaTeX Project.
well, it wasn't that easy --- perhaps we all learned from it. My thanks go
formost
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Sure, that's fine. But the LPPL people might not like it, given their
weirdness.
thanks a lot, if we are back to abuse then I guess that's about time to stop
happy easter to those who accept it from a weirdo but perhaps that makes it
suspicious
frank
Branden Robinson writes:
Are you gravely opposed to external changelogs, as might be generated
by, say, cvs2cl -- even if those changelogs have to be distributed along
with the modified files of the Derived Work?
yes, we are. This is not how the LaTeX world works. The
Walter Landry writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that above we also addressed the concern by (I think Walter)
concerning 5a2 so that it now only requires run-time identification
if the original used runtime identification
Thank you. It is extremely close
Walter Landry writes:
5a1 is not a free alternative. 5a2 approaches that, but it has to
cover _every_ occasion where 5a1 fails, not just most of them.
I don't think it is acceptable that you take a list of ors, judge each of
them individually and conclude that each of them is not 100%
Branden Robinson writes:
c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
Maintainer's addresses in any way.
This is somewhat new ground for a DFSG-free license. Is it *really*
Branden Robinson writes:
c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
Maintainer's addresses in any way.
This is somewhat new ground for a DFSG-free license. Is it *really*
Branden Robinson writes:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:14:55PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify
your copy of The Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on The Work,
as long as the following conditions are met
Frank Mittelbach writes:
we think it is neither of users nor of people actively supporting (read:
user support) and maintaining a large software system, that modification is
done without minimal preparation for a potential distribution (because
ooops. what was that? i meant something like
I think i answered about all of the points raised a minute ago
Jeff Licquia writes:
Does This is LaTeX-format, unmodified followed a few lines later by
this is foo, modified by someguy qualify? As written, I'd think this
infringes.
I would say this doesn't (or should not,
Branden Robinson writes:
Mandating technologies in license documents really rubs me the wrong
way.
I'm not too happy about it either, but ...
The nice(?) thing about legal language is that you can use broad
terms to say what you mean, and as long as your meaning is clear and
Jeff Licquia writes:
Let me try to improve on Branden's version, phrased a little differently
so it becomes a new 5.a.2:
The entire Derived Work, including the Base Format, does not identify
itself as the original, unmodified Work to the user in any way when
run.
This would be
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
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Except that you can't make GPL code validate with the LPPL
validator, since the GPL and LPPL are not compatible. So, since
there's no danger that the code will be run through
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you can, of course, combine/run GPL packages with the base format
LaTeX-Format, there are a packages of packages licenced in this way
Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous to
linking
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
I've CC'ed this to a LaTeX person - any comments from the LaTeX crowd?
just for the record, i'm in fact subscribed to -legal since last year, just as
Henning suspect, it is just that most of you go to sleep when I wake up an
vice versa, have to get the kids to bed and then rejoin
frank
Joe Moore writes:
And also, the any derived work language might be seen as an attempt to
restrict the licensing preferences of derivative works. For example, if
someone would prefer to license their modifications under a strong
copyleft license, clause 10 above would seem to suggest that
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Except that you can't make GPL code validate with the LPPL validator,
since the GPL and LPPL are not compatible. So, since there's no danger
that the code will be run through the validator and identify itself as
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
that it isn't Standard LaTeX.
2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be
used provides a
Barak Pearlmutter writes:
Something like this:
You must not cause files to misrepresent themselves as approved by
the official LaTeX maintenance group, or to misrepresent
themselves as perfectly compatible with such files (according to
compatibility
Frank Mittelbach writes:
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
used provides a documented
Walter Landry writes:
snip
This example seems to indicate that your main problem with the
validator is that it seems like a programmatic restriction. If it
were made more clear that this is not the case, would this satisfy
you? How would you change it?
It would
Mark Rafn writes:
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 Standard LaTeX.
Would it be
sorry for joining late, but i was away without email access, as a result it is
a bit difficult to join in without possibly overlooking arguments already
presented, sorry if that is going to happen
Mark Rafn writes:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
That's basically the idea. *If*
Walter Landry writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This example seems to indicate that your main problem with the
validator is that it seems like a programmatic restriction. If it
were made more clear that this is not the case, would this satisfy
you? How would you change
Jeff Licquia writes in reply to Joe Moore:
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 13:45, Joe Moore wrote:
10. The Work, or any Derived Work, may be distributed under a
different license, as long as that license honors the conditions in
Clause 7a, above.
This clause confuses me.
well, the
Branden Robinson writes:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:54:37AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
However I think it would be a poor solution to argue legally that you
are able to ignore Don's explicit wishes simply because he is a
Computer Scientist rather than a lawyer and was unable
Branden Robinson writes:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:34:43AM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
I have put these systems into the public domain so that people
everywhere can use the ideas freely if they wish.
[...]
As stated on the copyright pages of Volumes~B, D, and~E,
Branden Robinson writes:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 12:01:09PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Even here on the list I noted that several people (which I presume to to
be
debian-legal regulars) used public domain in different senses.
There is only one sense.
I wasn't questioning
Branden Robinson writes:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 11:47:59AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
It did however happen, several times by individuals and that was all I was
referring to. Perhaps you missed those posts which wouldn't be surprising
given the number of posts on the whole subject
Branden Robinson writes:
Perhaps it strains your credulity, but that's all Debian really
requires. Such statements from a copyright holder are a license, every
no it does not. but as there are interpretative statements around (by Don) as
well as copyright notices on individual files and
Branden Robinson writes:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:59:56PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
but Don hasn't put his work out as a whole with a license
Then to what, exactly, do his statements in comp.text.tex on Wed, 23 Feb
1994 03:34:01 GMT apply?
To nothing at all? Was he just
Branden Robinson writes:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:23:31PM -0400, Itai Zukerman wrote:
What're your plans for tonight?
Watch one of the 6 DVDs I got in the mail, or some of the many dragon
ball
Zs I probably have on Tivo, go to your place, watch class, go out to
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 07:37:22PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
really, what is behind all this aren't file names but works (plural), and
each
of such works is supposed not to claim itself as the original (to other
related works) after it was modified, eg
Branden Robinson writes:
and only acceptable if it can't be checked by a computer as being the
original.
It would be trivially easy to circumvent computer checks. What about
case-sensitivity? Can I trust a computer to catch ALL of the following
uses of TeX?
I'm talking of
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm talking of requiring that the work identifies itself by name via
interface to other works (something that could be checked by a
computer)
What I want to highlight is how radically different this is from
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ more ~/tex.web
% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are
reserved.
% Copying of this file is authorized only if (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if
% (2) you make
C.M. Connelly writes:
I read this statement as saying that anyone can do anything they
want with the code in the .web files, so long as they don't call
the resulting systems/fonts TeX, METAFONT, or Computer Modern.
Knuth is unfortunately (or fortunately if you go by the legal content only?)
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is the situuation we are in here. LPPL has proved popular.There are
hundreds (jillions) of independently distributed packages using the
same licence. If you decide it is OK for the first of these to have a
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not perfectly but more or less it does. First of all, true
compatibility backward and forward can only be achived by no change
at all, even adding only features would potentially break existing
documents
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I must confess that i havea bit of a problem to understand the exchange
between you and Henning, but could you please be more precise about
- which freedom is taken away from all users, and
- which
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why? If a file is outside the LaTeX search path, there is no reason to
keep it frozen. Actually the current LPPL explicitly gives you the
right to change a licensed file
I'm just got back online and found 100 messages or so. I will come to the
thread Concluding the LPPL debate, try 2 at some point, but some of the
mails I read contain some misunderstanding that I think needs clearing up as
well (as they might help to come to a conclusion on the above thread) ...
Walter Landry writes:
percolated up to the top. Isn't this stability what the LaTeX people
want? They put their stamp on a set of packages and call it good.
it seems that I'm unable to explain the situation properly since this type of
misunderstanding shows up over and over again
There
Branden Robinson writes:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 11:58:46AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The option 3 you propose would entail that two directory trees
existed, one which is the original LaTeX, and one where the kernel is
modified and renames but the rest of the files (say, third-party
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're missing the point. The LaTeX people certainly do know that
there are *some* places where pristine
Jeff Licquia writes:
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 10:34, Brian Sniffen wrote:
[...]
Those who care primarily about the freeness of software, or who wish
to take a macro language apart and put it together again, would use
FreeLaTeX. Debian could distribute FreeLaTeX in its main
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 17:32, Henning Makholm wrote:
However, when I modify the name of size12.clo I need to make sure that
article.cls can find my modified file. For example, article.cls
contains something
Brian Sniffen writes:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:59:23 +0200, Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
The point is that by distributing it under LPPL it will be the same
everywhere (or not on the installation). That work of yours might
change/overwrite any part of other code
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 02:24:13AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
remember LPPL is not the license for the LaTeX kernel it is a
license being applied these days to several hundreds of indepeneded
works (individually!).
Oops. Is the kernel under a different
Mark and others,
We already allow for the concept that programs may not be allowed to
lie about their origin in that they may be required to have a
different name.
A different name to humans. A different package name, sure. In some
cases, a different executable name (This would
Jeff Licquia writes:
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 14:56, Walter Landry wrote:
So let me get this straight. Pristine LaTeX would have, within it, a
mechanism for checking whether a particular file is blessed by the
LaTeX project. Ideally, it could check digital signatures. md5sums
might
David Turner writes:
OK, how about the following:
As a special exception to the section titled CONDITIONS ON DISTRIBUTION
AND MODIFICATION (Section 57), you may modify the Program by
processing them with automated translation and compilation tools
(Tools) to generate derivative works
Boris Veytsman writes:
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:53:23 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So it is NOT me or David or anybody else from The LaTeX Team that controls
an
this: the terms of LPPL control it as any work under LPPL will be on a
LaTeX
system
Henning Makholm writes:
Would you consider the second of these options acceptable?
who is the you in your question?
frank
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning,
In other words, I challenge you that in this case you don't live up to your
social contract in particular to #4 of it. I.e. you are not guided be the
needs of your user _and_ the free-software community but guided only by one
singular interpretation of what is free-software
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm writes:
Would you consider the second of these options acceptable?
who is the you in your question?
Good question. The you I had in mind was Frank Mittelbach (or
whoever has the power
Jeff Licquia writes:
If each piece of the work had to be downloaded separately, then this
would be a valid way of thinking. When the LaTeX Project collects a
bunch of these separate works and combines them into LaTeX, though,
they create a derived work, with its own licensing
Glenn Maynard writes:
I've split this off, since I don't think mixing the LaTeX and (Te)TeX
licensing problems is a good idea.
they are related but you are right this is a separate issue and should be
discussed separately.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Jeff Licquia writes:
The LaTeX Project is not collecting a bunch of seperate works and combines
them into LaTeX. It only provides 3 or 4 core parts of what is known to be
LaTeX as well as providing a license (LPPL) which helps to keep that thing
LaTeX uniform between different
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK. Now I'd like to hear the Debian side. Here are the conditions for
modification that are being proposed as I understand them:
- you must rename all modified files, or
- you must rename the whole of LaTeX in
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
It sounds like you might have to talk to Branden and maybe Henning as
well. I'm not sure about Mark Rafn and Glenn Maynard. Thomas
Bushnell, Sam Hartman, and Colin Watson seem to be with you. Those
Richard Braakman writes:
Hmm, I thought of a perhaps more practical example that also illustrates
my desire for transitive closure. What if you take a piece of code from
an LPPL'ed work and use it in another project? This other project might
lack any facility for remappping filenames.
Glenn Maynard writes:
If I remove any given features from a BSD-licensed program, it remains
free.
but the same would be true for the LPPL as proposed to be rewritten by me with
the help of Jeff and others.
I repeat the essential point is that requirement to be able to apply LPPL
would be
Jeff Licquia writes:
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 13:20, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Jeff Licquia writes:
The LaTeX Project is not collecting a bunch of seperate works and
combines
them into LaTeX. It only provides 3 or 4 core parts of what is known
to be
LaTeX as well
sorry pressed C-c C-c in the wrong window ... try again
Jeff Licquia writes:
sorry, but we are not concerned only with the core stuff. even though we
don't
distribute the rest. The whole set of files put on ctan and identical (on a
pristine LaTeX installation) is what makes LaTeX
David Turner writes:
I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
decisions yet.
hmmm, perhaps not, but Richard Stallman
Javier Bezos writes:
Freedom includes the right to do things that you (and even I) think
are stupid. Debian stands for freedom.
And lppl is intended to give you the right to do stupid things (yes
you can do them), but without perjudicing the right of all latex
users to have a
It's not expressly forbidden or expressly allowed, so we have to figure
out if it's OK or not. As I mentioned, it doesn't seem onerous as a
requirement; just an mv/cp and a few Makefile edits.
Would you not need to rename the Makefile too if you edit it?
for that hypothetical license Jeff
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
for that hypothetical license Jeff was talking about I wouldn't
know, but even that wouldn't be a problem as you could load your new
makefile with -f. it wouldn't be very useful as the Makefile is a
building
Folks,
it seems to me that by now we are turning around in cycles rehashing arguments
that are important in general (can LaTeX have security problems, yes or no?;
how does one do software development ...) but not with respect to the problem
at hand which still is (to me at least) the following
David + Jeff
The problem is that I do not believe that the security model of TeX and
the security model of LaTeX are absolutely equivalent. They may be
close, but close doesn't cut it in the security world.
I don't think they are close. I assert they are the same as latex is just
Jeff,
I am afraid you do not know about the recent history of gcc.
[...]
We, as a project, understand this perhaps better than you do. We
currently ship three different C compilers for woody: 2.95 in most
cases, 2.96 for certain architectures, and 3.0 for one architecture
You might be interested in Thomas's followup:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00407.html
sure i am. but at the same time I just saw the reply by Walter
message number perhaps
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00431.html
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 now)
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 called
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 it
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 with no derivatives
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 red herring
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 under
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 language program
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 as the
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 01:28:53AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
So, you are defending abstract principles against a very unlikely
It sounds like you're dismissing Debian's strict free software principles
because they're abstract.
I for my part am not dissmissing
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are a number of myths it seems concerning what is allowed or
not and how LPPL must or can be applied.
here are some of them:
- to fork you have to rename every package under LPPL
all of them
Nick Phillips writes:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 04:04:33PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
It is not reasonable that the author of a package such as
indentfirst.sty
for example (which consists of exactly 4 TeX tokens) should be expected
to go to the trouble of trying to legally register
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
no. *each* file that you change must be renamed, but where is the
problem here? I think it has also been demonstrated that is neither
excessive nor in conflict with DSFG 3+4
Why is renaming important to you
Glenn Maynard writes:
As long as you offer DFSG-free options, you can offer as many other
options as you want. You can say: you can distribute modified files if
1: you rename the program to something other than 'Latex', 2: you rename
all modified files, *or* 3: you swear loyalty to Frank
on this in
my next message, replying to Frank Mittelbach. Stay tuned.
waiting for it, Lars probably as well
cheers
frank
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
no. *each* file that you change must be renamed, but where is the problem
here? I think it has also been demonstrated that is neither excessive nor
in
conflict with DSFG 3+4
I still think it can be viewed
Glenn Maynard writes:
i don't want an explanation for #3 :-) but I would like to see an argument
for
#2 not being DSFG-complient.
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
form _only_ if the license
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LaTeX is a document markup language the primary aim is to have
portable documents. Thus anything that claims to be latex (or tex, or
the computer modern fonts) should produce the same output.
But you have *no*
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
B. The *name* TeX is reserved for Knuth's program. If you program
is called TeX, it must satisfy triptest. You can NOT correct bugs
in this program, you cannot do Debian QA for it -- you either take
Glenn Maynard writes:
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. Not everybody --- the camp
Jeff wrote in one of his mails he is waiting for me to return with comments
and I intend to do so, but first like to have things a bit more focused (for my
own benefit at least :-)
so what i present here is essentially a set of concerns and comments that I
gathered from the various mails that
Jeff Licquia writes:
Thanks for the effort. I generally agree with the points made, both
that they cover the issue well and that I concur with their analysis,
with the exceptions I note below.
thanks for your comments (same to Henning)
I'm not going to comment on them yet, but instead
Jeff Licquia writes:
Well, as you see, this community has its own way of modifying
programs. We have traditions that predate GPL, Linux and even C. We
are quite happy with the way the things are.
I think this is the main issue. You have a tradition for allowing
modification that
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
