s, the discussion network, offers free web-based access to more than
50,000 high-quality discussion forums. Come and visit us on the web at
http://www.dejanews.com/=zzz_maf/
--
(beginning of original message)
Subject: LaTeX Pr
Project Public License (http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html).
My question for debian-legal is: Does the Latex Project Public License satisfy
the Debian Free Software Guidelines?
My understanding is that in general it does not, due to the clause
"You may not modify in any way a file o
[Followups to debian-legal please]
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 19:53:59 +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> David Carlisle, on behalf of the LaTeX3 Project, just posted to
> comp.text.tex the announcement of the "LaTeX Project Public License",
> valid for the next upcoming LaTeX r
Ray writes:
> I can't get DejaNews to give out a correct permanent URL to it, so if you
> want to view it in DejaNews, use the Message-ID search
> (http://www.dejanews.com/forms/mid.shtml).
"Document Not Found"
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
>From the LPPL:
* You rename the file before you make any changes to it, unless the
file explicitly says that renaming is not required. Any such changed
files should be distributed under conditions that ensure that those
files, and any files derived from them, will never be redistributed
> I see no way to comply with this. How can I possibly guarantee that
> someone downstream from me will not change the name back?
This is not a new clause, it has been the standard latex conditions for
some years.
Unlike GPL software which forces derivatives to be under exactly GPL,
The LPPL is
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 16:12:20 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Ray writes:
> > (http://www.dejanews.com/forms/mid.shtml).
>
> "Document Not Found"
Strange. It works fine from here:
penguin ray 10:37 /tmp > env -u http_proxy HEAD
http://www.dejanews.com/forms/mid.shtml
200 OK
Ray
--
J.H.M. Dassen
David writes:
> ...subject to the constraint that no derivatives of this software are
> given the filenames of the original source files for this code which were
> released under LPPL these: are x y z.
I understand the intent of the clause. Nonetheless, it says that I must
ensure that the origina
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 06:10:52PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> >From the LPPL:
> * You rename the file before you make any changes to it, unless the
>file explicitly says that renaming is not required. Any such changed
>files should be distributed under conditions that ensure that those
>
>
>
> ensure that the original names are never used. This is impossible.
>
since you added a CC to a debian list, I assume that you know of the following:
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict
source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if
David Carlisle writes:
> since you added a CC to a debian list,...
I didn't add debian-legal to the headers: that's where this discussion
started. I added you, since I thought you would be interested.
> ...I assume that you know of the following:
As a Debian developer and a charter subscriber
You> reasonable comment on LPPL draft
Me> rather ungracious response:-)
Sorry it had been a long day... I have passed your suggested wording
round the other latex develpoers, with a suggestion that we might
consider using that.
In general though I really don't want to change anything very much.
> Try this:
Thanks. Paragraph has been reworded as suggested.
David
as been released, under the
> Latex Project Public License (http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html).
>
> My question for debian-legal is: Does the Latex Project Public License satisfy
> the Debian Free Software Guidelines?
>
> My understanding is that in general it does not, due to
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > My understanding is that in general it does not, due to the clause
> > "You may not modify in any way a file of The Program that bears a legal
> > notice forbidding modification of that file," but revtex's upstream version
> > 4
> > can still be cons
seems to be no consensus as of yet.
I've attached the version that comes with the problem package;
there is a new version at
http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/base/lppl.txt .
The LaTeX Project Public License
Terms And Conditions For Copying, Distribut
I have attached a new working draft for the LaTeX Project Public License
(LPPL) below.
After the debate that took place months ago, I and several members of
the LaTeX Project worked off and on towards solving the problems that
had been raised before. This version, a near-total rewrite, is the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Folks,
The LaTeX Project is in the process of considering changes to the
LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL). I have tried to summarize
some of the concerns that Debian people have expressed for them,
but since I don't completely agree with so
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to get a word on the DFSG status of the LPPL.
I think it is (marginally) DFSG-free as long as the package
in question does not invoke the option to forbid the distribution
of modified versions.
--
Henning Makholm "Guldnålen er h
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have attached a new working draft for the LaTeX Project Public License
> (LPPL) below.
At first glance, everything looks fine except for section 5.
> 5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify
> your copy
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run, and
> > the Base Format provides a facility for such files to be
> > validated as being original parts of The Work, then the fi
Jeff Licquia said:
> I have attached a new working draft for the LaTeX Project Public License
> (LPPL) below.
>
> 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 claus
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 02:06, Walter Landry wrote:
> At first glance, everything looks fine except for section 5.
>
> > 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 condi
>> Strings for other programs (think browser id-strings) must be
>> modifiable to anything at all. Strings strictly for human consumption
>> can be required to indicate that it is different.
The distinction seems rather vague as machines can read messages
originally intended for humans, and vic
On Tue, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> However, I can also predict that that the LaTeX people will likely stand
> their ground in places.
Thank you for doing this, Jeff. It would be great to have LPPL which
allows us to keep LaTeX in Debian. I really wish it wasn't a matter of
"standing grou
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.
>
> Is this really saying that I can distribute The Work, or
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 12:19, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Thank you for doing this, Jeff. It would be great to have LPPL which
> allows us to keep LaTeX in Debian. I really wish it wasn't a matter of
> "standing ground", but it doesn't appear that any of the non-free
> requirements have been removed. It l
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 02:06, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > 2. If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run, and
> > > the Base Format provides a facility for such files to be
> > > validated as being original parts of The Work,
> Is this really saying that I can distribute The Work, or ANY Derived Work,
> under any license I choose, as long as 7a (which is really just a pointer
> to 5a, which says that if you're not the current maintainer, you must make
> modifications sufficiently obvious) is satisfied?
>
> For exampl
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 19:13, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree that *requiring* the use of the trust facilities is bad; I'm
> > attempting to make it possible for LaTeX to be able to rely on the
> > trust facilities in "Standard LaTeX" while maintaining the
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The filename limitations are now optional; 5.a.1 is one possibility of
> three. As for 5.a.2 and the programmatic identification strings, can
> you elaborate? Considering that much of the wording in the license is
> mine (including 5.a.2), it's entirely
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
> easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
> files, but not the validation mechanism.
Could you please imagine one? Remember to include in your imagined
sce
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
> >> easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
> >> files, but not the validati
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
>> easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
>> files, but not the validation mechanism.
>
> Could you please
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 11:50, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > The filename limitations are now optional; 5.a.1 is one possibility of
> > three. As for 5.a.2 and the programmatic identification strings, can
> > you elaborate? Considering that much of the wording in
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
> > easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
> > files, but not the validation mechanism.
>
> Could you ple
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I agree that *requiring* the use of the trust facilities is bad; I'm
> > > attempting to make it possible for LaTeX to be able to rely on the
> > > trust facilities in "Standard LaTeX" while maintaining the freedom
> > > to ignore it for "non-Stand
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> >> That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
>> >> easy to imagine scenarios where you are able t
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote:
> I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the
> context of LaTeX, not in the context of all of free software. We
> can't say that it is ok to use this license for LaTeX, but not for
> Mozilla, Apache, Samba and OpenSSH.
Why
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:32, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
> >> easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > That's basically the idea. *If* there is a validation mechanism, and
> > *if* the module uses the validation mechanism to assert it is "Standard
> > LaTeX", then when you change the file, you must ensure th
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > >> That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
> > >> easy to imagine scenarios where you are abl
> On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > It still depends on the platform that runs it to determine whether the
> > modification is allowed. It may be that this is free when distributed
> > with a base format that does no such validation and non-free otherwise.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jef
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the
> > context of LaTeX, not in the context of all of free software. We
> > can't say that it is ok to use this license for LaTeX, but no
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 19:29, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > > It still depends on the platform that runs it to determine whether the
> > > modification is allowed. It may be that this is free when distributed
> > > with a base format that does no such valida
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 16:50, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
> >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> >> That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 20:49, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the
> > > context of LaTeX, not in the context of all of free software. We
> > > c
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 17:59, 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.
Well, I suppose there's no convincing someone who has made up their
mind.
--
Jeff
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> If the Base Format itself is free, why is this non-free?
>
> On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 19:29, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > Does this conflict with DFSG#9? This license effectively insists that the
> > Base Format must be free software in order for the Work to be free
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:59:07PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But does that possibility make the original software non-free? Your
> > argument seems to be that it is possible to make a derived version
> > that is not free - but that possiblity exist
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 20:49, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the
> > > > context of LaTeX, not i
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain
> elements that are specific to the problem domain?
I acknowledge it in principle, except it turns out that I don't buy
the "problem domain" thing. Any bit of code may want to be used in
Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of
how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction
between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good
stuff, we could back up a step? This all really an attempt to
procedurally implement an underlying c
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
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.
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of
> how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction
> between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good
> stuff, we could back up a step? This all real
> > 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 criteria established by the offici
Frank Mittelbach said:
> 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
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>> >
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
> Would it make it less of a misrepresentation if the comment produced
> output to the screen that this wasn't Standard LaTeX?
AFAIU, what the authors of the LPPL draft is trying to express is
nothing more or less than
1. You must make your modifie
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 possible to use GPL wording for
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 01:05, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of
> how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction
> between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good
> stuff, we could back up a step? This a
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 22:24, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain
> > elements that are specific to the problem domain?
>
> I acknowledge it in principle, except it turns out that I don't buy
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 00:44, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain
> > elements that are specific to the problem domain?
>
> Of course I don't acknowledge that. One of the wonderful things about
> free
> > I've CC'ed this to a LaTeX person - any comments from the LaTeX crowd?
>
> I've removed the Cc again - Frank did read debian-legal the last time
> the LPPL was discussed, so I assume he is still (or again) subscribed.
Frank is subscribed I think, I'm currently not but am reading the thread
o
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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
> "standard", the GPL satisfies 7a. S
> 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
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 00:44, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain
> > > elements that are specific to the problem domain?
> >
> > Of course I don't acknowle
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 documented standard way of emitting such mess
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
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 provid
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
> > > comp
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 documente
Walter Landry writes:
>
> > > > 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?
> > >
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.
>
>
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
> Thousands of lines of "this is non-Standard LateX" flying by would
> prevent use in many circumstances; would a single, collected "This
> is non-Standard Latex; see logfile for which components are
> non-Standard" meet the LaTeX group's requirements?
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 the validator
>>> and
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
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 (i.e., doesn't result in a combined,
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
>
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins writes:
> > Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous
> > to linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined, derived work)?
>
> it is not at all like linking in my understanding. I take it that
> you are not famil
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 package is intended to be
> used provide
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
Jeremy Hankins writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Jeremy Hankins writes:
>
> > > Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous
> > > to linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined, derived work)?
> >
> > it is not at all like linking in my unders
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'd prefer just saying that the documentation must make clear what the
> > provenance is.
>
> I take this as a yes, though you do not like it, correct?
Neither.
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 ori
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins writes:
> > I'm not all that knowledgeable about latex, but I do use it and I have
> > read the discussions here. So correct me if I'm wrong, but my
> > understanding is that a package file has a very intimate level of
> > contact
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian T. Sniffen writes:
>
> > > Would it be possible to use GPL wording for this? The ability NOT to do
> > > this when written for non-interactive use is important.
> >
> > I seem to recall a line of argument that this is OK when only a small
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
> > So if the LaTeX
> > people become evil and later decide to change the format so that you
> > get different behavior with non-validating files, then there has been
> > a retroactive change in the licensing terms. What exact
On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 10:06, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> it is probably pointless to speculate what he meant, the above interpretation
> is in any case wrong as far as I can tell.
OK. My bad.
(FWIW, Jeremy had my idea down.)
--
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
>
> I
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 informa
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 so
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
> > th
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
