Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So far I have seen the comments by Jeff (who goes in a lot of detail
> through the license, for which i would like to thank him, and to
> which i intend to get back) but other than that, all I heard so far
> and repeatedly heard is "we don't like that y
William F Hammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (And is it the case that one or both of these lists is filtering the
> name of the other list from message headers? IMO discussion on this
> issue _should_ _be_ sent to both.)
The latex list rejected my email. Presumably because I'm not
subscribed t
walter landry wrote (inter alia)
> Here is a hypothetical. Let's say that someone wants to add support
> for Klingon into Latex. So they hack something together which, by
> necessity, changes a few standard files, and it works for them without
> breaking anything else. You reject the patch beca
> The latex list rejected my email. Presumably because I'm not
> subscribed to it.
the membership of the list agreed that closing the list was a useful
precaution against the floods of spam that we were suffering at the
time.
robin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Walter Landry writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So far I have seen the comments by Jeff (who goes in a lot of detail
> > through the license, for which i would like to thank him, and to
> > which i intend to get back) but other than that, all I heard so far
> > and repe
Robin Fairbairns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a klingon support package might very well patch some latex internals;
> it will presumably provide some fonts, and so on. this is all allowed
This is where we differ. I want to change the standard article class
and still call it article.cls. That le
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
> > Well, there were my comments that preventing the modification or
> > removal of .ins files goes beyond what clause 4 allows. I even gave
> > an example where it might be completely appropriate to do such a
> > thing. The
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Now you seem to be saying that there are so many ways to modify Latex
> that I would never need to change article.cls. What if article.cls is
> itself broken? Why can't I fix it and distribute that fix?
>
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:23:14PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> TeX people are from a different culture. TeX is not going to evolve.
> It is frozen. As Knuth said, "These fonts are never going to change
> again" (http://sunburn.stanford.edu/~knuth/cm.html).
If that philosophy is embodied in a c
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:48:28 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:23:14PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > TeX people are from a different culture. TeX is not going to evolve.
> > It is frozen. As Knuth said, "These fonts are never going to change
>
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 10:48:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:23:14PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > TeX people are from a different culture. TeX is not going to evolve.
> > It is frozen. As Knuth said, "These fonts are never going to change
> > again" (http://sun
On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 22:52, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:48:28 -0500
> > From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:23:14PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > > TeX people are from a different culture. TeX is not going to evolve.
> > > It i
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:52:57PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> Then you should stop distribute TeX, texinfo and GNU info.
TeX is currently under discussion, so I will await the outcome of this
discussion to opine on it. (In Debian, LaTeX is provided as part of
the TeTeX distribution, so any li
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 16 Jul 2002 23:08:59 -0500
>
> The King James Bible is in the public domain, so we are allowed to
> modify it all we want.
>
Except in Great Britain, where it is copyrighted by the crown
--
Good luck
-Boris
"Nominal fee". What an ugly senten
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 12:01:50AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> Thankfully, the TeX license is simple, and easily understood, unlike
> the LPPL-1.3 draft. I would recommend reading it yourself, Branden,
> just so that you don't get thrown red herrings.
Noted. There certainly seems to be *some* quan
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 12:16:28AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> yes. we do as well about 90% of the latex software around has nothing to do
> with the latex project team from which the license comes. it is neither
> certified or directly integrated nor anything. it improves on the kernel or
> a
On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 23:15, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > The King James Bible is in the public domain, so we are allowed to
> > modify it all we want.
>
> Except in Great Britain, where it is copyrighted by the crown
This was discussed recently on debian-legal; see the thread beginning
at
http://l
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 10:48:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:23:14PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > > TeX people are from a different culture. TeX is not going to evolve.
> > > It is frozen. As Knuth said, "These fonts are never going to change
> > > again"
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 03:48, David Carlisle wrote:
> Could someone who speaks for Debian please state clearly how the TeX
> licence meets DFSG in ways that LPPL does not. If we can't understand
> this I don't see how we can possibly re-write LPPL to be compatible with
> both the TeX licence and DFS
> I am having trouble finding any file on my system (with tetex-base and
> tetex-extra installed) that is licensed in this way. What file did you
> pull this license from?
> You should note that tetex in Debian is split into free and non-free
> parts; it's entirely possible that the file you qu
On 2002-07-17 10:39:53 -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I am having trouble finding any file on my system (with tetex-base and
> tetex-extra installed) that is licensed in this way. What file did you
> pull this license from?
tex.web, which is the source for tex (the binary). Surely you
have the sour
On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 18:17, Walter Landry wrote:
> Robin Fairbairns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > a klingon support package might very well patch some latex internals;
> > it will presumably provide some fonts, and so on. this is all allowed
>
> This is where we differ. I want to change the st
On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 16:08, C.M. Connelly wrote:
> The LaTeX Project Public License
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[...]
> We, the LaTeX3 Project, believe that the conditions below give you
> the freedom to make and distribute modified versions of The Program
> that conform with whatever tec
Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 14:53, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Uhh, that's a joke, right? Or have you really never used MS Word? As
> > someone who has had the misfortune[1] of using Word seriously for some
> > fairly large documents, I can assure that "static and predictable" is
>
On Monday 15 Jul 2002 8:42 pm, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Instead it is the wish to give preserve for LaTeX users one of the most
> fundamental features of TeX and LaTeX: the reliability that a document
> produces identical results at different sites thus allowing LaTeX to be
> used as an exchange
Will Newton writes:
> No amount of license changes will prevent site administrators making their
> own changes to their LaTeX installation, and I would hope major
> distributors
if so then why bother to license anything at all?
> would have enough respect for their users and the LaTeX commu
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 10:15:21PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Will Newton writes:
> > No amount of license changes will prevent site administrators making their
> > own changes to their LaTeX installation, and I would hope major
> > distributors
>
> if so then why bother to license anyt
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 03:46:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It appears that Debian's consensus is that forbidding the renaming of
> files is too large a stick to achieve your goal of notification of
> deviation from a standard.
Sorry, s/forbidding/mandating/.
--
G. Branden Robinson
I'm glad to see you here, Frank. Please forward my responses as you
deem appropriate to latex-l.
On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 14:42, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> It is _not_ the wish of the LaTeX project to "control" the layout produced by
> LaTeX nor is it the with the have an "identical layout" for all L
Branden Robinson writes:
> How do you propose to enforce a license that restricts people from
> modifying files on their own systems, and distributes only among a
> private group of individuals?
I don't have a proposition for that. but LPPL wasn't written originally (or
ever) to enforce things
Jeff,
> I'm glad to see you here, Frank. Please forward my responses as you
> deem appropriate to latex-l.
i try to do that, though most people probably don't really care either way as
long as things work as desired :-)
it is getting late (here --- for me at least) and I will be unable to
sub
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 11:45:52PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> I don't have a proposition for that. but LPPL wasn't written originally (or
> ever) to enforce things legally, it was written to codify what the majority of
> the LATeX community understood as an important set of goals
Uh, well, i
Branden Robinson writes:
> > but again, there is one major miss-statement in your sentence. we don't
> > restrict people from modifying files, we only ask them to do it in a way
> > that
> > is helps everybody (including them in the long run).
>
> A requirement to rename *is* a restriction
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:32:13PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
I am disappointed that you did not reply to one of my points:
The entire raison d'etre of a copyright license is to "enforce
things legally". Perhaps you should contrain the LPPL's scope
to whatever ends yo
Sorry I don't know the official name for "debian-legal@lists.debian.org".
:-)
(And is it the case that one or both of these lists is filtering the
name of the other list from message headers? IMO discussion on this
issue _should_ _be_ sent to both.)
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwards
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 05:04:22PM -0400, William F Hammond wrote:
> Sorry I don't know the official name for "debian-legal@lists.debian.org".
> :-)
You've got it. In Debian, our lists don't *have* names. :)
> (And is it the case that one or both of these lists is filtering the
> name of the ot
Branden Robinson writes:
> I am disappointed that you did not reply to one of my points:
>
> The entire raison d'etre of a copyright license is to "enforce
> things legally". Perhaps you should contrain the LPPL's scope
> to whatever ends you want to achieve with that means.
> > (And is it the case that one or both of these lists is filtering the
> > name of the other list from message headers? IMO discussion on this
> > issue _should_ _be_ sent to both.)
>
> Well, that's a nice idea, but the LATEX-L list rejects postings from
> not subscribers.
sorry, for tha
Jeff, it's not clear under your license how Debian could package a
modified version. OUr binary packaging system (and the DFSG) do not
really allow modifications to be separate from the original
particularly for compiled works. I may be missing something obvious.
Assuming that this license were a
On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 12:05, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Jeff, it's not clear under your license how Debian could package a
> modified version. OUr binary packaging system (and the DFSG) do not
> really allow modifications to be separate from the original
> particularly for compiled works. I may be miss
On 13-Jul-02, 23:54 (CDT), Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The first thing that becomes clear is their desire that LaTeX be as
> static and predictable as Microsoft Word over layout issues.
Uhh, that's a joke, right? Or have you really never used MS Word? As
someone who has had the misf
On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 14:53, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 13-Jul-02, 23:54 (CDT), Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The first thing that becomes clear is their desire that LaTeX be as
> > static and predictable as Microsoft Word over layout issues.
>
> Uhh, that's a joke, right? Or have
42 matches
Mail list logo
