> 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
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
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,
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'
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 12:10:11AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> > I'm probably missing something obvious, but if the name "LaTeX" were
> > trademarked and could only be used by systems that are created so as
> > not to conflict with any package that could be obtained from CTAN, would
> > that no
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:
> 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
>
> > Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:07:06 +0100
> > From: David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > If you make a program that isn't called tex, are you saying you can
> > edit
> > plain.tex and call the modified file plain.tex without being in
> > contravention of the comment at the top of pla
> I'm probably missing something obvious, but if the name "LaTeX" were
> trademarked and could only be used by systems that are created so as
> not to conflict with any package that could be obtained from CTAN, would
> that not actually provide better protection than is currently available?
we
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
> The "fine-ness" I was referring to was that, for works that add the
> "LPPL 1.2 or any later version" language to the license, we aren't
> required by law to hunt them down.
Law's the law but I just wanted to stress that this is one of (perhaps the
main) constraint that Frank and I have. Knowin
On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 15:24, David Carlisle wrote:
>
> Jeff
>
> > I've seen that some people include the "LPPL 1.2 or any later version"
> > language into their license notice. Those people would be fine
> > (although I would recommend that notice be given of this particular
> > license change a
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:07:06 +0100
> From: David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> If you make a program that isn't called tex, are you saying you can edit
> plain.tex and call the modified file plain.tex without being in
> contravention of the comment at the top of plain.tex which says
>
>
Jeff
> I've seen that some people include the "LPPL 1.2 or any later version"
> language into their license notice. Those people would be fine
> (although I would recommend that notice be given of this particular
> license change as a gesture of goodwill to the community).
No. I don't think the
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
> > >
> TeX is not similar at all (Why do people keep bringing this up?). The
> only thing you have to do is not call it TeX. You can then modify
> files in place all you want.
As has been shown before the situation with TeX isn't as clear cut as
you make out, and the situation with the cm fonts is a
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
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:50:07PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> uniformity in a different way. but being as it is, I see no good alternative
> as trademarking several hundred file names isn't (and wouldn't help Debian
> either).
I'm probably missing something obvious, but if the name "LaTeX"
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
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 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
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
> 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,
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
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
> 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, 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
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,
> > 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
> > > 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
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 (T
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 10:22, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > How is it an API change to register the name of the work you belong to?
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood, but it sounded like it would be required for a
> modified work to identify itself as modified, so that docume
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Yikes. I'd accept the former as free before the latter, personally.
> >> Giving users options is one thing, but option two seems to suggest
> >> that if Latex
> > > On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> > > > LPPL in case of modification without renaming could, for example,
> > > > require to change an argument of \NeedsTeXFormat macro, i.e. to
> > > > replace
> > > >
> > > > \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}
> > > >
> > > > in overcite.
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 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?
>
> This
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> let me first qualify the suggestion that Jeff made above
>
> - the reason for it is to give the user the possibility to exchanges
>documents with other using pristine LaTeX and obtain identical output
>
> - it therefore quite pointless to carry
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yikes. I'd accept the former as free before the latter, personally.
>> Giving users options is one thing, but option two seems to suggest
>> that if Latex is forked for some reason we'll need to ferry around
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 03:41:29AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Hmm... it does, by naming the GPL as an example license. The GPL has
> three conditions on modification. Clause 2(a) does add inconvenience:
>
> a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
> stating t
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 22:31, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> > > LPPL in case of modification without renaming could, for example,
> > > require to change an argument of \NeedsTeXFormat macro, i.e. to
> > > rep
On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> 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?
This is insanity. If this is the goal, just choose a nice simpl
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? If so,
> LPPL in case of modification without renaming could, for example,
> require to change an argument o
23-Jul-02 15:02 Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
> If you think of LPPL applying to the whole of a LaTeX sty/cls tree of
> files at once, we could, i think
> live with the idea (it is even described so in modguide or cfgguide as a
> possible though not encouraged
> solution (thereby actually violating the
On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Do you think that it is non-free for a license to require *distributors*
> to always provide the option to use pristine source when running
> something?
Definitely non-free. Distributors may be required to provide pristine
source and patches, but must be allo
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:31:26PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I think they have a legitimate concern about what we distribute versus
> what users do. What a user does may affect his machine and maybe a few
> others, but what Debian does can affect thousands of machines.
Consider that some of ou
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:05:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It doesn't matter whether the modification is easy or hard. I think the
> assertions of the Free Software Foundation and some of my fellow
> Debian developers are misguided in this respect. The DFSG says nothing
> about how incon
23-Jul-02 18:46 Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>> The license already allows sub-works within LaTeX to have additional
>> modification requirements beyond the LPPL. If you thought that some of
>> the sub-authors would disagree with relaxing the file naming requirement
>> when changing the name of the
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 16:36, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > The rights we demand are usually for special cases.
>
> I strongly disagree. The rights we demand are guaranteed to our users,
> and they get to decide what's a special case and what's a burning need.
Right.
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 La
On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Correct. I want to distinguish here between the rights Debian needs to
> have and the rights Debian intends to exercise.
This may be a useful distinction, in that it reminds license authors to
keep "I hope" and "I want" out of the license and stick to "You
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 11:53:26PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > Sure. Before getting to your hypotheticals, I'll try and give you a
> > direct, if generalized, answer.
> >
> > A license must be tested against DFSG 4 when either of the following are
> > true:
> >
> > A) the license p
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 12:32, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Comments? Branden, Walter, Mark, and Jeremy, I'm especially interested
> in your opinions, since you three are the current objectors.
Hmm. Time to sign up for those remedial math classes, I think... :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
