At 04.17 +0200 2002-07-23, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 18:24, Lars Hellström wrote:
>> At 01.31 +0200 2002-07-22, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>> >Right. The question is "what modification rights do you have?" There's
>> >good reason to believe that the "must change the file name" clause mu
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 unde
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 license than LPPL?
I susp
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm writes:
> also not violating LPPL but violating the spirit of it would be to add an
> article.cls that just contained
> \input{article-with-recurity-problem-removed.cls}.
If such a simple-minded technique will not count in court as a
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 18:24, Lars Hellström wrote:
> At 01.31 +0200 2002-07-22, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >Right. The question is "what modification rights do you have?" There's
> >good reason to believe that the "must change the file name" clause must
> >apply to derived works as well, so each time
At 01.31 +0200 2002-07-22, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 15:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> > The discussion between Jeff and me turned up another main concern,
>> > regarding the distribution of modified works. In his opinion (which I n
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> For debian people: please consider this. I believe this voids many of the
> intents of the license, as previously mentioned (sysadmins can use this
> remapping feature to make \documentclass{article} load some other file
> instead of 'article.cls'),
Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> well they do to some extend but not really. The simplest solution for a
> distributor would be (beside informing the authors of articl.cls)
> simply not to distribute article.cls but only
> article-with-recurity-problem-removed.cls (no i'm not really suggesting
> thisas a
(Please CC me on answers: I'm not a member of debian-legal.)
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Concern 1: requiring a change of filename in case of modification
>in case of distribution
> =
>
> this seems t
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 15:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The discussion between Jeff and me turned up another main concern,
> > regarding the distribution of modified works. In his opinion (which I now
> > suspect holds for at least those jurisdictio
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 la
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, then. As far as I understand, the
w
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! it usually leads to new good results for the whole
community. but we encourage it in a way that it can be live sidelong with t
Scripsit Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The discussion between Jeff and me turned up another main concern,
> regarding the distribution of modified works. In his opinion (which I now
> suspect holds for at least those jurisdictions where copyright is something
> which just arises rather tha
At 12.15 +0200 2002-07-19, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>What I now would like to ask you about these four blocks is:
>
> on a): have i missed any important concerns or any important sub-argument
> within a concern?
The discussion between Jeff and me turned up another main concern,
regarding
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
On Fri, 2002-07-19 at 05:15, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> so what i present here is essentially a set of concerns and comments that I
> gathered from the various mails that people put up as a problem with LPPL or
> rather as a problem behind the ideas behind LPPL (rereading and compiling took
> me rou
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Concern 1: requiring a change of filename in case of modification
>in case of distribution
> =
>
> this seems to me the major stumbling point for most people and
> (unfort
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 peop
19 matches
Mail list logo
