> This is especially true if you
> interpret the many different modules of LaTeX as separate works (as the
> LaTeX Project seems to do)
I don't see how you can do anything but consider them separate works.
If you are writing latex packages then latex is essentially a programming
language. So y
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 10:16, Mark Rafn wrote:
>
> > >If the situation allows for the renaming of only a few things--and
> > >only user commands, really--then I don't mind *that* much. If the
> > >situation requires the renaming of a jillion things, then I mind.
>
> I'd go further than Thomas. I
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:49:32PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> > If pushed, I will concede that this is illogical, and the rule should
> > really be "filename limitations make a package non-free"
>
> It's fine for you as an individual to think that _should_ be the case
> (I happen to disagree b
> If pushed, I will concede that this is illogical, and the rule should
> really be "filename limitations make a package non-free"
It's fine for you as an individual to think that _should_ be the case
(I happen to disagree but that's not relevant either) But Debian can't
take that position unless
> >If the situation allows for the renaming of only a few things--and
> >only user commands, really--then I don't mind *that* much. If the
> >situation requires the renaming of a jillion things, then I mind.
I'd go further than Thomas. I'm torn between "No renaming, nohow noway"
and "If it re
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 h
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
> renaming rule you can't change your
> Or, I accept rather that sometimes a naming restriction is compatible,
>and sometimes its not.
>
>If the situation allows for the renaming of only a few things--and
>only user commands, really--then I don't mind *that* much. If the
>situation requires the renaming of a jillion things, then I mi
David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So either you accept that the naming restriction is compatible with Free
> software or you don't. But I don't see how you can possibly argue that
> if you take two pieces of work each with a "rename" restriction and put
> them together as a debian packa
Thomas Bushnell wrote (in two messages)
> I think this is true, provided it's *one* renaming that's in question,
> and not a jillion.
> I've already said that if all that is necessary is changing the
> "latex" command name, then I don't object. That's in the category of
> a trademark (even if t
At 04.25 +0200 2002-07-28, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 19:10, Lars Hellström wrote:
[snip]
>> There is however a catch: the GPL won't let him. This functional change is
>> expressively forbidden by the above clause in the license. I'm not sure
>> whether he is forbidden to make the m
Henning Makholm writes:
> > As I said earlier, I guess we could be persuaded to provide two
> > kernels within LaTeX distribution, one as it is now, and one with
> > the remapping feature already available. If that kernel would be
> > used then you would perhaps get
>
> I'm not keen about
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > Date: 27 Jul 2002 10:00:12 -0700
>
> > However, more to the point, free software is about particular
> > freedoms. In the instant case, the freedom I'm asking about is a
> > freedom to modify and di
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 27 Jul 2002 10:00:12 -0700
>
> However, more to the point, free software is about particular
> freedoms. In the instant case, the freedom I'm asking about is a
> freedom to modify and distribute the program, something that both the
> DFSG
On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 19:10, Lars Hellström wrote:
> At 27 Jul 2002 09:50:54 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> >However, more to the point, free software is about particular
> >freedoms. In the instant case, the freedom I'm asking about is a
> >freedom to modify and distribu
At 27 Jul 2002 09:50:54 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
>Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> well, "all" user expect that for LPPL licensed files at the moment
>> because that is what the license ensures. But Henning is of course,
>> right that I can't predict w
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> People should be able to modify LaTeX on their own systems, and indeed
> they shall be allowed to (when the kinks are worked out of the LPPL).
> The DFSG does allow that the copyright holder may require distributors
> of modified versions to rename the w
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > What you don't seem to understand is that the users document + the
> > > code from packages + the code from the kernel together determine
> > >
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If
>LaTex2e <1999/12/01> patch level 1
> would identify that the system you are using is ULL, then Mark has
> an argument that (after some education) it should be enough to have
> people check for that particular line. The counter argument is tha
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What you don't seem to understand is that the users document + the
> > code from packages + the code from the kernel together determine
> > the result.
> You know, I've been familiar with Latex fo
On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 11:53, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Right. The users are not allowed to have something called "latex"
> which doesn't do exactly what you demand that "latex" should do.
>
> THAT is the unfreedom, and you support it by a wild claim that all
> users "expect" the "latex" pro
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "If a vendor wants to distribute a derivateve of a GPL program without
> sources, and all customers know about it, and want it, and want it
> this way, then why, exactly, do you want to prtohibit them from this
> freedom?"
Um, they *do* have this free
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - anybody is free and invited to do whatever she likes with the code
>if there is no distribution
That doesn't count as "freedom", ok? If it doesn't include the
freedom to share, it might as well not exist as far as we are
concerned.
> - anybo
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 27 Jul 2002 09:50:54 -0700
>
> If a site wants a variant of latex, and all the users at that site
> know about it, and want it, and want it to be called latex, then why,
> exactly, do you want to prohibit them this freedom? (Or want to
>
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> well, "all" user expect that for LPPL licensed files at the moment
> because that is what the license ensures. But Henning is of course,
> right that I can't predict whether or not they actually believe,
> that people following the license so, "well,
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What you don't seem to understand is that the users document + the code from
> packages + the code from the kernel together determine the result.
You know, I've been familiar with Latex for probably longer than you
have. So please spare me the tedio
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
> >
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would suggest for (nearly) all typesetting systems to use a license like
> > LPPL, simply because (nearly) all of them have as one of their purposes the
> > goal to allow interchange of documents.
>
> Here'
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
> > docu
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would suggest for (nearly) all typesetting systems to use a license like
> LPPL, simply because (nearly) all of them have as one of their purposes the
> goal to allow interchange of documents.
Here's the big mistake.
You think you are matching the
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...
It either *does* break them or it doe
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 freedom is given to a subset
You have rep
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Henning,
>
> > My intention is and was to point out that while it was several times
> > expressed that the user is on your mind as well as the developer my
> > impression is that it is heavily weighted towards the la
> However, I'm not going to force this down the LaTeX community's
> throat. If they don't want to do it, they don't have to. I just
> think that it accomplishes their goals better than anything else,
> while preserving the freedom to modify.
I'd think this was a joke but I have a horrible fee
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
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 m
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
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 26 Jul 2002 13:15:44 +0200
>
> Scripsit Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > If you create non-LaTeX, you can move files outside the tree, and
> > then you are completely free to do whatever you want.
>
> Please substantiate this claim wit
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 files are expected. It's not
> > >
> 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 in the ULL. That's fine
>
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 10:01:40 +0200
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_Schr=F6der?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 2002-07-25 16:46:57 -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Um, no. In the case where package FOO needs package BAR,
> > \NeedsTeXFormat has BAR tell FOO that BAR is a good version. Using
>
> I
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
Ther
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) ...
Scripsit Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you create non-LaTeX, you can move files outside the tree, and
> then you are completely free to do whatever you want.
Please substantiate this claim with quotes from the license.
--
Henning Makholm "Vend dig ikke om! Det er et meget ube
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 files are expected. It's not
> > necessary for them to be able to identify each of those
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The kernel does not "call" any packages of its own accord.
> > Each document source names the packages that it wants included.
> Well, I'm sure that there are some packages that it does call.
Sorry, but y
On 2002-07-25 16:46:57 -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Um, no. In the case where package FOO needs package BAR,
> \NeedsTeXFormat has BAR tell FOO that BAR is a good version. Using
It can tell BAR only that FOO is the version BAR knows. What if
FOO is a newer but compatible version?
Best regards
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The LaTeX people are not able to know whether "pristine files are
> > expected", because they don't know all the circumstances under which
> > their product is used.
>
> You're missing the point. The LaTeX people certainly do know that
> there are *
> From: Brian Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:52:16 -0400
>
> > 2. You can do whatever you want with TeX code as long as it is not
> >called TeX.
>
> Yes. But it requires renaming the *work*, not each individual file.
> Some of the files, of course, carry more string
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > > What if this md5sum were computed using TeX? Assuming reasonable
> > > > performance, would that be a s
Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 25 Jul 2002, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > pc-043:~/foo$ latex radio.tex
> > This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2C 7.3.1)
> > (radio.tex
> > LaTeX2e <1999/12/01> patch level 1
> Cool. Is it possible to simply add a requirement "the identification
> string
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (I understand that this is precisely why the LaTeX people are not
> > happy with relying on human-readable diagnostics output to prevent
> > hacked files from erroneourly ending up in places where p
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > What if this md5sum were computed using TeX? Assuming reasonable
> > > performance, would that be a solution?
> > Not really, I think - for where would the
Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:50:49 -0700 (PDT), Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Let me tell you how the things are organized in the TeX world. There
> >> are dozens of TeX implementations. Some are f
> Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Yes. This seems to be a flaw in LaTeX - it doesn't interactively identify
> > itself when run.
On 25 Jul 2002, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Huh? The LaTeX I run identifies itself quite plainly in the third line
> of the output:
Excellent, you're right (I
At Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:50:49 -0700 (PDT), Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Let me tell you how the things are organized in the TeX world. There
>> are dozens of TeX implementations. Some are free, some are commercial,
>> some are open, some are
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (I understand that this is precisely why the LaTeX people are not
> happy with relying on human-readable diagnostics output to prevent
> hacked files from erroneourly ending up in places where pristine
> files are expected, without anybody noticing).
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning,
> My intention is and was to point out that while it was several times
> expressed that the user is on your mind as well as the developer my
> impression is that it is heavily weighted towards the latter and in
> this particular case (in my
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 16:58, Walter Landry wrote:
> > However, I'm not going to force this down the LaTeX community's
> > throat. If they don't want to do it, they don't have to. I just
> > think that it accomplishes their goals better than anything else,
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > What if this md5sum were computed using TeX? Assuming reasonable
> > performance, would that be a solution?
>
> Not really, I think - for where would the checksums to compare with
> come from? They coul
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:57:36 -0400, Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>> From: Brian Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:39:49 -0400
>> The terms of the copy of TeX on my computer appear to be rather
>> different: it's public domain with a trademarked name,
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What if this md5sum were computed using TeX? Assuming reasonable
> performance, would that be a solution?
Not really, I think - for where would the checksums to compare with
come from? They couldn't all be embedded in the kernel since the
kernel and t
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 14:57, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > From: Brian Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:39:49 -0400
> >
> > All that's moot, as Knuth seems rather unlikely to change his license,
> > and it's DFSG-free and compatible with the OpenTeX and FreeTeX ideas I
> > pro
Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes. This seems to be a flaw in LaTeX - it doesn't interactively identify
> itself when run.
Huh? The LaTeX I run identifies itself quite plainly in the third line
of the output:
pc-043:~/foo$ latex radio.tex
This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2C 7.3.1)
(r
> From: Brian Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:39:49 -0400
>
> > 1. Your proposition should include not only LaTeX but also TeX since
> >its licensing terms are essentially the same.
>
> The terms of the copy of TeX on my computer appear to be rather
> different: it's
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me tell you how the things are organized in the TeX world. There
> are dozens of TeX implementations. Some are free, some are commercial,
> some are open, some are closed. I would not be surprised if some of
> these are not written in C and do not use
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 13:08, Brian Sniffen wrote:
> > On 25 Jul 2002 12:39:35 -0500, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Maybe I'm just dense, but I still don't see the incompatibility. Can
> > anyone else see it?
>
> Yes. Look at Microsoft's Trusted Computing plans: programs will
> i
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 12:48, Brian Sniffen wrote:
> > Plus, I've yet to hear a good argument for why the \NeedsTeXFormat thing
> > isn't DFSG-free.
>
> I think it's a matter of which direction it's coming from. There are
> several variants which are free, and several which aren't. For
> example:
> On 25 Jul 2002 12:39:35 -0500, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 10:27, Mark Rafn wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
>> > > The difference is that the printf is intended to identify to the human
>> > > running the program what version she h
> Plus, I've yet to hear a good argument for why the \NeedsTeXFormat thing
> isn't DFSG-free.
I think it's a matter of which direction it's coming from. There are
several variants which are free, and several which aren't. For
example:
1. "You can't distribute code using \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX} u
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:48:37 -0400, Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>> From: Brian Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:34:50 -0400
>>
>> I'd like to suggest a licensing variant for LaTeX which uses a
>> weakened form of the API restrictions discussed ea
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 10:27, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > > The difference is that the printf is intended to identify to the human
> > > running the program what version she has, and the registration is intended
> > > to prevent compatible derivative works.
> > On 24 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > What is the difference between that and the following?
> > > register_std("LaTeX");
> > > (Which, as I understand it, is a C equivalent to the \NeedsTeXFormat
> > > thing.)
> On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > The difference is that the
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 10:34, Brian Sniffen wrote:
>
> I'd like to suggest a licensing variant for LaTeX which uses a
> weakened form of the API restrictions discussed earlier. In its
> simplest form, this requires distribution of two versions of LaTeX.
> One is under a no-cost-but-proprietary mod
> From: Brian Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:34:50 -0400
>
> I'd like to suggest a licensing variant for LaTeX which uses a
> weakened form of the API restrictions discussed earlier. In its
> simplest form, this requires distribution of two versions of LaTeX.
> One is un
I'd like to suggest a licensing variant for LaTeX which uses a
weakened form of the API restrictions discussed earlier. In its
simplest form, this requires distribution of two versions of LaTeX.
One is under a no-cost-but-proprietary modification ("OpenLaTeX")
similar to the LPPL3, but which allo
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 24 Jul 2002 22:44:16 -0700
>
> See, we have a different model of evolution--one much much much longer
> term.
>
> Our model is one that should not rely on any assumption that
> *anything* will be static, because of a desire to think *long*
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think here is the difference between our goals.
>
> Our community has the following model of evolution. Any change in the
> language or API are allowed as long as the full backward compatibility
> is preserved. By the full backward compatibility I me
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 20:30, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I have serious doubts about the freeness of this option, and they are
> motivated by what seems to be a closely analogous situation to me:
> web browser identification strings.
>
> Imagine that Microsoft, after being visited by aliens, decides
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> No, it's true of C as well. We wouldn't accept a Perl, for instance, that
> forbade incompatible changes to the API, even if it allowed addition of
> keywords. It really is the case that we want to preserv
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > What is the difference between that and the following?
> > register_std("LaTeX");
> > (Which, as I understand it, is a C equivalent to the \NeedsTeXFormat
> > thing.)
>
> The difference is that the printf is in
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> No, it's true of C as well. We wouldn't accept a Perl, for instance, that
> forbade incompatible changes to the API, even if it allowed addition of
> keywords. It really is the case that we want to preserv
On 24 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> printf("This is Standard LaTeX\n");
>
> is not allowed, and the restriction is allowed by the DFSG.
Maybe. If it's part of an API (like an HTTP header), or it's a common
practice for programs to switch on this string, I'd probably argue that
this restriction
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 11:20:00PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > - or that you change to \NeedsTeXFormat{sniffenlatex} if your work is
> >intended for a "nonLaTeX" fork in which case you could keep the name.
>
> I'm not sure that it would ma
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > > 1. The right to use fragments, ideas or algorithms of their code in
> > >any way whatsoever without any limitations
> >
> > Cool. This right is incompatible with your interoperability guarantee,
> > and with some other license terms for at lea
> > A different name to humans. A different package name, sure. In some
> > cases, a different executable name (This would be problematic if it
> > were broad enough). A different name in it's API? I don't think that
> > follows.
>
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> who is the
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hate to disappoint you, but this is much more work than you think.
> >
> > LaTeX is not a Linux project. It is not even a Unix or Posix
> > project. It is
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 16:03, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Still don't get it. You're either requiring modified work to follow a
> specific API, which is IMO non-free, or you don't get the desired
> protection against impostors, as a modified work could simply return the
> latex identifier.
I still don't s
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > Perhaps because LaTeX people want to give other people (basically
> > themselves) a couple of other rights, namely:
>
> > 1. The right to use fragments, ideas or
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 ha
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-so
> On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 10:22, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > Perhaps I misunderstood, but it sounded like it would be required for a
> > modified work to identify itself as modified, so that documents can
> > determine if they're running on "real" latex. This disallows preserving
> > the API exactly while
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Don't tell me that 631 lines of C code is too much.
It is, when there is no infrastructure to run C code at all.
> Gee, isn't it nice that we can modify the TeX engine?
One cannot, when the boundary conditions are that one wants to produce
a program
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 16:58, Walter Landry wrote:
> However, I'm not going to force this down the LaTeX community's
> throat. If they don't want to do it, they don't have to. I just
> think that it accomplishes their goals better than anything else,
> while preserving the freedom to modify.
What
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hate to disappoint you, but this is much more work than you think.
>
> LaTeX is not a Linux project. It is not even a Unix or Posix
> project. It is a thing which works on virtually all platforms
> including Unices, Windows, Mac, OS/2, VM/CVS, VMS, DO
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 to decide what's in the next version of
> > > On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> > > > The question here is how to guarantee that a changed overcite.sty
> > > > (without renaming) will not be used with pristine LaTeX, right?
> Mark Rafn wrote:
> > This is insanity. If this is the goal, just choose a nice simple
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Our point is that that a user of LaTeX is (normally) in either of
> two situations:
> - she starts "LaTeX" on a installed unix or windows system where the
>installation of the system was not installed by her or was
>installed by her but usi
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]
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
> > LaTe
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
