> Understanding your goal a bit , I think I can state that it is not
> possible to release software that is both free and prevents users from
> being given a modified copy.
I agree with that as you write it, but I don't believe that saying you
must call the modified copy something else is the sam
> David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However the disagreements there from the Debian side seem to be
> > characterisable as "it can't work" or "I'd have no respect for someone
> > who uses such a licence".
I regret making that comment, and I apologize for it. I intended to say that
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 07:52:09PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
>If Debian wants to declare (and presumably delete from the main
>distribution) the software under this license, it would be
>hypocrisy to keep TeX and fonts. I wonder whether people realize
>that this means a complete
> Um, no. The real objection is: it's not DFSG free.
Last time I asked for an objective list of places where people thought
LPPL didn't meet the DFSG, someone posted such a list and Frank I think
addressed all the raised points in his last draft, didn't he?
> The other comments are attempts to
David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the one area where there will probably be disagreement is over
> the "renaming rule" however that eventually gets worded.
>
> However the disagreements there from the Debian side seem to be
> characterisable as "it can't work" or "I'd have no r
> Err, are you sure this is largely due to the license change, and not to
> other changes in the Unix world?
I don't want to disapoint you but it's most likely true that most tex
use doesn't happen in the unix world:-) (although as it happens a good
part of latex was written on a Debian system..
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:38:47AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> > But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
> > "latex".
> Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
> been remarkably successful in its stated aims.
> Prior to the latex2e lic
> Registering "LaTeX" as a trademark would have given you much more power
> (i.e. real power) to discourage such things without requiring such high
> standards for others wanting to play around with the code.
It wouldn't have given any protection at all to users of the package
longtable (which wa
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The point is not the fork on that level it is the fork on the package
> level. LaTeX users, just as pdflatex users, etc. expect their documents if
> processed at one site with LaTeX (or with pdflatex, etc) to come out the same
> if processed with LaTe
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To say the truth, it is ok to have kgcc, egcs, gcc on the same
> system. The problem is, you need to decide what is *the* $CC for each
> program.
And if it's posix, there's c89, which is guaranteed on Posix systems
to be the ANSI C compiler.
But the
Jeff,
> > I am afraid you do not know about the recent history of gcc.
> >
> > [...]
>
> We, as a project, understand this perhaps better than you do. We
> currently ship three different C compilers for woody: 2.95 in most
> cases, 2.96 for certain architectures, and 3.0 for one archite
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jul 2002 15:02:28 -0500
>
>
> Would it really contradict your professed goals to have three
> LaTeX-alike systems floating around, one named LaTeX, one named FooTeX,
> and one named BarTeX?
>
Of course not. Actually there are several systems
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 11:05, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:27:04 -0700
> >
> > Perhaps latex is a miserably poor interchange format. Or perhaps
> > the language needed a clear standard and clear documentation. After
> > all, the
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:22:50PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Don't reinvent the wheel. If you want the legal assurance of a
> trademark, just go and get one.
It seems that people who havn't been willing to act in good faith (eg.
people who wouldn't follow guidelines for this if they didn't app
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 03:38, David Carlisle wrote:
>
> > But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
> > "latex".
>
> That is a very tired argument.
And this is not?
> Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
> been remarkably successful i
David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LaTeX is distributed with a free Licence that most independent people
> have taken as meeting the DFSG.
Where did you get this from? I have doubts as to whether any
independent people (i.e. not affiliated with Debian or the LaTeX
project) have really co
Javier Bezos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And lppl is intended to give you the right to do stupid things (yes
> you can do them), but without perjudicing the right of all latex
> users to have a latex working correctly and with documents which
> can be distributed freely.
Huh? Even if it were i
Javier Bezos writes:
>
> > Freedom includes the right to do things that you (and even I) think
> > are stupid. Debian stands for freedom.
>
> And lppl is intended to give you the right to do stupid things (yes
> you can do them), but without perjudicing the right of all latex
> users to h
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:27:04 -0700
>
> David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Prior to the latex2e licence (which from which LPPL was derived)
> > "latex" could be (and often was) locally modified and re-distributed.
> > It got so bad by
> Freedom includes the right to do things that you (and even I) think
> are stupid. Debian stands for freedom.
And lppl is intended to give you the right to do stupid things (yes
you can do them), but without perjudicing the right of all latex
users to have a latex working correctly and with doc
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:38:47AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
>>> But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
>>> "latex".
>>
>> That is a very tired argument.
>> Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
>> been remarkably successful in i
> Perhaps latex is a miserably poor interchange format. Or perhaps
> the language needed a clear standard and clear documentation. After
> all, the way the world of C programmers solved this problem was by
> careful standardization, not by insisting that there should be Only
> One C Compiler.
I
David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Prior to the latex2e licence (which from which LPPL was derived)
> "latex" could be (and often was) locally modified and re-distributed.
> It got so bad by around 1990 that passing a latex document from one site
> to another was largely a matter of luck
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:38:47AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> > But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
> > "latex".
>
> That is a very tired argument.
> Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
> been remarkably successful in its sta
> But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
> "latex".
That is a very tired argument.
Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
been remarkably successful in its stated aims.
Prior to the latex2e licence (which from which LPPL was derived)
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter, i think, asked if one can't remove that checking code through another
> (independent) modification. The answer is yes, easily, but only by either
>
> - forking the latex kernel, ie running on a non-latex in which this whole
>discussion is
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 04:20, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> btw, would it be acceptable to you if LPPL would say,
>
> in case of modification you either
>
> - do what LPPL asks for now (i.e. rename ...), or
>
> - you keep the LaTeX package file name but replace
>
> \ProvidesPackage{varioref}
>
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > probably none (definitely not for the 72 individual font names.
> > Nevertheless
> > Debian wouldn't get a good press if it would generate modified versions of
> > such programs and fonts and distributed them unde
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> probably none (definitely not for the 72 individual font names. Nevertheless
> Debian wouldn't get a good press if it would generate modified versions of
> such programs and fonts and distributed them under the original names.
Please avoid the falla
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > i think so yes, for example, Don's home page
> > other may be able to refer you to more explicit quotes.
>
> Knuth's home page is large. Do you have a specific reference?
sorry, seems i have thrown you a re
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i think so yes, for example, Don's home page
> other may be able to refer you to more explicit quotes.
Knuth's home page is large. Do you have a specific reference?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - reads in files (and ignores their content)
> - writes out two or three files by dumping the results expected by TRIP.TEX
>
> then i only have to feel happy about it to be able to call it TeX. :-) in
> other words you can always trip wordings (as
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> by producing "special-non-latex" you are required to change its identifaction
> strings which means that this program will identify itself to the user as
> "not-latex" no matter what it is called as a debian package. Of course by
> packaging it with a
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:29:36AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
>
> > > Indeed, I can do two things:
>
> > > Make a derivate work of latex, which is variant, and called
> > > "special-non-latex".
>
> > > Make a package wi
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> >From tripman.tex:
>
> If somebody claims to have a correct implementation of \TeX, I will not
> believe it until I see that \.{TRIP.TEX} is translated properly.
> I propose, in fact, that a program must meet two criteria before it
> can justifiably be
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > Indeed, I can do two things:
> >
> > Make a derivate work of latex, which is variant, and called
> > "special-non-latex".
> >
> > Make a package with no derivatives of latex at all, which contains a
> > single
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:29:36AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > Indeed, I can do two things:
> > Make a derivate work of latex, which is variant, and called
> > "special-non-latex".
> > Make a package with no derivatives of latex at all, which contains
21-Jul-02 01:29 Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
>> Indeed, I can do two things:
>>
>> Make a derivate work of latex, which is variant, and called
>> "special-non-latex".
>>
>> Make a package with no derivatives of latex at all, which contains a
>> single symlink: 'late
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No. You are quite wrong. Provided it still passes triptest, you can
> > call it TeX. You certainly can correct bugs or do Debian QA, provided
> > the changes still pass triptest.
>
> sorry but I fear it's you that is quite wrong. The triptest
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >B. The *name* TeX is reserved for Knuth's program. If you program
> >is called TeX, it must satisfy triptest. You can NOT correct bugs
> >in this program, you cannot do Debian QA for it -- you either ta
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > LaTeX is a document markup language the primary aim is to have
> > portable documents. Thus anything that claims to be latex (or tex, or
> > the computer modern fonts) should produce the same output.
>
> But yo
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 04:15:20 -0400
> > From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > If the core can be changed in any way without changing it directly,
> > then you can break output exactly as well by this mechanism as you
> > could by editi
David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> LaTeX is a document markup language the primary aim is to have
> portable documents. Thus anything that claims to be latex (or tex, or
> the computer modern fonts) should produce the same output.
But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademark
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But you're right, if the LaTeX license allows this it may be DFSG free.
And, we can create another package that has a symlink from latex to
patched-not-really-latex. That other package would not be, in any
way, a derivate of latex, and thus it isn't sub
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>B. The *name* TeX is reserved for Knuth's program. If you program
>is called TeX, it must satisfy triptest. You can NOT correct bugs
>in this program, you cannot do Debian QA for it -- you either take
>it as is or rename it.
No. You are
Nick Phillips writes:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 04:04:33PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> > It is not reasonable that the author of a package such as
> > "indentfirst.sty"
> > for example (which consists of exactly 4 TeX tokens) should be expected
> > to go to the trouble of trying to legally
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 04:04:33PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> it is allowed.
> pdftex for example produces different output from the same input.
> you could use the command "latex" for that as it doesn't involve any
> changes in LPPL'ed code, although tetex calls the command pdflatex
> as a us
> I think you are mistaken. You are assuming that the engine used to process
> those macros will also not be changed; it would be quite possible to change
> LaTeX in such a way that it produced identical output from all valid LaTeX
> input whilst adding other functionality, if you modified it to
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:55:43PM +0200, Javier Bezos wrote:
but the documents created using that distribution. If I get a
document by "John Smith" (somehow), how can I see if _his_
system had a modified latex?
>
> Others (eg Boris) seem to be saying that the Latex developers don
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:12:44 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:55:43PM +0200, Javier Bezos wrote:
> > >> but the documents created using that distribution. If I get a
> > >> document by "John Smith" (somehow), how can I see if _his_
> > >> system
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 13:22, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, David Carlisle wrote:
>
> > Changing the font metrics isn't like changing a picture file
> > it's like changing your png renderer so that the same file produces a
> > different image. ie the result document changes with no appare
> "Javier" == Javier Bezos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Javier> Thanks for saying "apparently" :-). We are repeating and
Javier> repeating again than you can rewrite latex in full, if you
Javier> want.
MMM, someone on the Debian side here should write up an instructive
rant on what
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, David Carlisle wrote:
> Changing the font metrics isn't like changing a picture file
> it's like changing your png renderer so that the same file produces a
> different image. ie the result document changes with no apparent change
> to that source document.
I agree with David
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:55:43PM +0200, Javier Bezos wrote:
> >> but the documents created using that distribution. If I get a
> >> document by "John Smith" (somehow), how can I see if _his_
> >> system had a modified latex?
Others (eg Boris) seem to be saying that the Latex developers don't
min
> Well, yes. OTOH, substituting pictures can also change layout, and
> pictures are clearly non-functional data.
document formatting systems have fonts they use in all documents.
They don't usually have pictures they use in all documents.
Changing the font metrics isn't like changing a picture
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 03:28, David Carlisle wrote:
>
> > Additionally, there is the question
> > of defining "non-functional" data; some kinds of data, such as fonts,
> > have functional impact
>
> for a system like latex the fonts (or at least their metrics) have as
> much impact as the rest of
> "Boris" == Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Boris> This is exactly the same with LaTeX. If you create a new
Boris> format newlatex.fmt and symlink /usr/bin/tex to
Boris> /usr/bin/newlatex (this is the UNIX TeX way to use
Boris> formats), then you have a complete free
> From: Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:20:32 -0400
>
> The TeX license is OK because it mandates what we call the program,
> but does not say anything about the API. Even if the binary is called
> uglytex, it's still easy for me to run it over .tex files. If those
>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 09:28:58AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> In that case probably it's best if we just all come back then.
> It will be a lot of work finalising the details of a rewrite of LPPL
> and if the only benefit of that is that you declare LaTeX suitable for
> the free part of Debian
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 04:15:20 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> If the core can be changed in any way without changing it directly,
> then you can break output exactly as well by this mechanism as you
> could by editing it directly.
>
No, because to change the core you nee
> Would a statement in the license that *either* of the following must
> happen be acceptable to the LaTeX project?
>
> * The modified copy of the Program is distributed under a name which
> clearly distinguishes it from Standard LaTeX, the unmodified copy.
>
> * Any files which share names be
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want more and want to change the kernel itself rather than
> redefining it on the fly (perhaps just for optimisation reasons) you can
> do that as well as long as you don't call it latex, see the quote from
>
Glenn Maynard said:
> If the core can be changed in any way without changing it directly,
> then you can break output exactly as well by this mechanism as you
> could by editing it directly.
So what...?
> If so, then there's no point in forcing people to use it; they can break
> stuff anyway.
> "Jeff" == Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 01:31, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>> Branden Robinson writes: > Perhaps the LaTeX community should
>> appoint a spokesman to the Debian > Project so that we do not
>> get contradictory statements abou
> you missed the point, which is that the changes in the Latex kernel
> had to be made in order for Klingon (or whatever language) to work.
> Don't tell me that there will never be a need to change the internals
> in order to make something work. You can't anticipate everything that
> will happen
> Additionally, there is the question
> of defining "non-functional" data; some kinds of data, such as fonts,
> have functional impact
for a system like latex the fonts (or at least their metrics) have as
much impact as the rest of the system. Modifying the font metrics is
even more likely to cha
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 09:28:22AM +0200, Javier Bezos wrote:
> Of course, I won't tell you that. I repeat that the internals *can*
> be changed without touching a single file from the LaTeX kernel,
> and currenty there are several packages doing that. An example:
> the hyperref package patches som
>> This is a really good argument *in favour* of LPPL! If someone
>> adds support for Klingon by modifying the LaTeX kernel, the
>> resulting documents will have a restricted distribution
>> because they won't compile correctly in other systems. This
>> is an _actual_ restriction. But if instead a
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 11:23:17AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> Some people have suggested that latex should allow arbitrary changes but
> only allow the name "latex" to be used if the resulting program meets
> some published interface. That is fine for a compiled program which can
> implement a
Javier Bezos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry said:
>
> > 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
> > a
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 05:29, David Carlisle wrote:
> Those conditions [on cm fonts] _are_ at the level of individual file
> names.
As a data point, there is some disagreement within Debian as to whether
non-functional components, such as documentation, should be held to the
same standard as functi
> That's not true. He hasn't registered a trademark on the name, I
> believe. So the most the license can do is prohibit you from calling
> a *derivative work* of Knuth's cmr10 file cmr10.tfm.
er yes that's the usual rider. Although it's not clear to me that you
can do that and still use it wit
David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> These simple conditions on the overall program name sound like they
>> fall within the scope of DFSG #4. Restrictions on individual file
>> names do not.
>
> Those conditions [on cm fonts] _are_ at the level of individual file
> names.
>
> You can n
> I think Frank et al's concerns could be addressed fairly easily by
> requiring distributors of modified versions of the entire LaTeX suite
> to document the changes and include the location of that documentation
> in the diagnostic output of latex, and requiring distributors of
> modified version
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 17 Jul 2002 02:02:25 -0500
>
> One possible important difference: there is, I would imagine, a much
> higher degree of consensus about the Debian Social Contract and DFSG
> within Debian than I expect there is in the LaTeX user community over
> li
> These simple conditions on the overall program name sound like they
> fall within the scope of DFSG #4. Restrictions on individual file
> names do not.
Those conditions [on cm fonts] _are_ at the level of individual file
names.
You can not call your font metric file cmr10.tfm unless it is b
I think Frank et al's concerns could be addressed fairly easily by
requiring distributors of modified versions of the entire LaTeX suite
to document the changes and include the location of that documentation
in the diagnostic output of latex, and requiring distributors of
modified versio
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 01:31, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
> > Perhaps the LaTeX community should appoint a spokesman to the Debian
> > Project so that we do not get contradictory statements about what is
> > acceptable?
>
> Branden, pardon me, but i think this is funny. se
Branden Robinson writes:
> The ease of alternatives to modifying source code is not important. The
> right of the user to create modifications and derived works is.
>
> Interestingly, Frank Mittelbach is asserting that it is not the intent
> of the LPPL to forbid mere modification of LaTeX
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 10:55:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In that case, you should specify in your documents' licenses which
> version of LaTeX you require your documents to be viewed with. Of
> course, your documents would not licensed in a DFSG-free way if you did
> so, but if you're s
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:43:33PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> I'm afraid you mix two different ponits here. You mix the freedom to
> change the document look and the freedom to change the typesetting
> engine.
From your perspective, that may be a meaningful distinction; from
Debian's, it is n
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 03:41:42 +0300
> From: Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 07:52:09PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> >B. The *name* TeX is reserved for Knuth's program. If you program
> >is called TeX, it must satisfy triptest. You can NOT correct bug
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:18:02 -0500
> From: Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I don't think anyone here has a problem with a license that says "If
> your LaTeX doesn't pass such and such a validation suite, you can't
> call it LaTeX, but you can do whatever else you want to do with it."
>
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 05:47:20PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> These are nice goals, but they do not make free software. Debian's
> definition of free software means that it satisfies the DFSG.
> Whatever your motives may be, if your program doesn't satisfy the
> DFSG, then it doesn't go in main
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Debian team overlooks a couple of points.
>
> 1. Debian already uses software other than LaTeX under the "no changes
>unless the files are renamed" clause. This is Don Knuth's TeX and
>MF suite *and* the relevant fonts. Let me remind you
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 07:52:09PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
>B. The *name* TeX is reserved for Knuth's program. If you program
>is called TeX, it must satisfy triptest. You can NOT correct bugs
>in this program, you cannot do Debian QA for it -- you either take
>it as is or rena
On Jul 16, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> To summarize: I think LPPL strikes a necessary balance between
> standardization and flexibility. This balance was tested by 20+ years
> of TeX, which is licensed under exactly same conditions.
I don't think anyone here has a problem with a license that says "If
Greetings:
I apologize for butting in in the ongoing discussion. Moreover, I am
neither a lawyer nor a LaTeX3 team member (a couple of my programs are
in the distribution, both under GPL and LPPL). Nevertheless I hope
that my thoughts might be of use.
I am a Debian and LaTeX user, so the present
88 matches
Mail list logo
