> Now, I realize that you don't say this in so many words. But all of the
> restrictions on filenames and the business about Current Maintainers
> make very little sense otherwise. Certainly those clauses in the
> license don't give people a sense of cooperation and trust.
>
> It might be instru
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:48:29AM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Could I distribute a modified version of Linux without Torvald's permission?
Yes.[1]
> I hope not.
Thanks for this insight into the LaTeX community's notion of "freedom";
I was honestly unaware of this perspective.
[1] Alternativ
Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've used TeX and Linux since they each came out,
> and I have no sense that one is "free-er" than the other.
> I don't even see the distinction you make regarding Current Maintainers.
> Could I distribute a modified version of Linux without Torvald's per
On Tuesday 16 Jul 2002 9:48 am, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> On a technical point, I would have thought
> that any conceivable change to article.cls
> could be encompassed in a package (.sty file),
> and you could simply tell people that you think article class
> is greatly improved if you usepackage{d
On Tuesday 16 Jul 2002 9:48 am, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> On a technical point, I would have thought
> that any conceivable change to article.cls
> could be encompassed in a package (.sty file),
> and you could simply tell people that you think article class
> is greatly improved if you usepackage{de
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 01:51:05PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Absolutely. Debian distributes modified kernels, and I know that we
> didn't ask for permission from Linus or the thousands of other
> copyright holders. In fact, some of the modifications were made
> against the express wish of som
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 03:45:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Thanks for this insight into the LaTeX community's notion of "freedom";
> I was honestly unaware of this perspective.
I am not "the LaTeX community".
I am just a LaTeX user.
Incidentally, the only thing I said about freedom
was
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 01:51:05PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Could I distribute a modified version of Linux without Torvald's permission?
> > I hope not.
> Absolutely. Debian distributes modified kernels, and I know that we
> didn't ask for permission from Linus or the thousands of other
>
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 02:24:16AM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 01:51:05PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Could I distribute a modified version of Linux without Torvald's
> > > permission?
> > > I hope not.
> > Absolutely. Debian distributes modified kernels, and I k
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 02:24:16AM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 01:51:05PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Could I distribute a modified version of Linux without Torvald's
> > > permission? I hope not.
>
> > Absolutely. Debian distributes modified kernels, and I know
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 02:35:48AM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> But they are all vetted by Torvalds.
Actually, no. There are at least four versions of the Linux kernel in
active development: Linus's, Alan Cox's, David Jones's, and Marcelo
Tosatti's.
This doesn't even count the versions of the
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:46:53 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You seem at least as ignorant of Linux kernel development as you accuse
> Debian developers of being with respect to TeX.
>
I am afraid the ignorance is truly mutual.
I was amused by the suggestion that a L
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:51:35PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> I am afraid the ignorance is truly mutual.
>
> I was amused by the suggestion that a LaTeX macro might cause a
> security problem and thus need a fix by Debian team.
I'm not the person who made such an assertion; in any event, it
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:51:35PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> I am afraid the ignorance is truly mutual.
>
> I was amused by the suggestion that a LaTeX macro might cause a
> security problem and thus need a fix by Debian team. This is about as
> possible as a security problem from the Bible
On 2002-07-17 00:44:21 -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> I can imagine latex.ltx containing a couple extra
> \openin15=.ssh/identity , \openin15=.gnupg/secring.gpg and
> \openout15=.shrc commands[2] as put there by someone who has cracked an
This is not possible on a default TeX installation.
http:
On 2002-07-16 21:35:23 -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> control of the software so that everyone can benefit. If you don't
> value the freedom that permits Debian to ship changed versions of
> software, that's your prerogative; but that happens to be the one thing
> you'll get all Debian developers
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 11:35:02AM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
> On 2002-07-17 00:44:21 -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > I can imagine latex.ltx containing a couple extra
> > \openin15=.ssh/identity , \openin15=.gnupg/secring.gpg and
> > \openout15=.shrc commands[2] as put there by someone who has
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:51:35PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> By the way I hope Debian developers do NOT reserve the right to change
> King James Version?
How do you think the world got the Revised Standard Version? The importance
of the ability to copy and modify works was present long befo
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:42:23 -0500
> From: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > By the way I hope Debian developers do NOT reserve the right to change
> > King James Version?
>
> How do you think the world got the Revised Standard Version? The importance
> of the ability to copy and mo
The freedom to create
these "personal versions" of software is the only protection that our
thousands or millions of users worldwide have against software authors
who are unresponsive, missing, or antagonistic. It is our insurance
policy that we will be free to continue to do what we be
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 04:35, Martin Schröder wrote:
> On 2002-07-17 00:44:21 -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > I can imagine latex.ltx containing a couple extra
> > \openin15=.ssh/identity , \openin15=.gnupg/secring.gpg and
> > \openout15=.shrc commands[2] as put there by someone who has cracked an
>
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 02:44:19PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> Speaking as a LaTeX developer, and as one of the authors of the LPPL I
> agree with those aims and would say that LPPL is perfectly compatible
> with them.
> I agree that anyone should be free to modify latex in any way and
> distr
On 2002-07-17 10:23:56 -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 04:35, Martin Schröder wrote:
> > On 2002-07-17 00:44:21 -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > > I can imagine latex.ltx containing a couple extra
> > > \openin15=.ssh/identity , \openin15=.gnupg/secring.gpg and
> > > \openout15=.sh
> I also don't think that
> copyright law gives you the protection you're really looking for,
> because unless you have the legal budget of the Scientologists, a name
> cannot be protected under copyright law; and therefore, your license has
> no power over anyone who chooses to implement a macro
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 10:34, Martin Schröder wrote:
> On 2002-07-17 10:23:56 -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 04:35, Martin Schröder wrote:
> > > On 2002-07-17 00:44:21 -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> > > > I can imagine latex.ltx containing a couple extra
> > > > \openin15=.
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 10:54:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> That would be a problem, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I'm having
> trouble verifying the TeX licensing situation, so I can't comment on the
> status of TeX in Debian. I'll check that file out if I can find it.
It's in the source of
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 10:32, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 02:44:19PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
>
> > I agree that anyone should be free to modify latex in any way and
> > distribute that modification. I just don't agree that they should leave
> > my email address at the top a
> Several people in this thread have already quoted several possibilities
> where LaTeX could be the vector of a security problem. If you're going
> to claim impossibility, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for
> proof.
Actually in the case of latex itself the proof is trivial to provide
> Let's take a look at it from a different perspective. What happens when
> someone does something like this in their LaTeX document?
> \usepackage{article}
> (Sorry if I screwed that up; I'm not a regular LaTeX user.)
(yes you did, but you're forgiven:-)
> If the license prevents us from modi
>> The default installation of teTeX makes it extremly difficult (if
>> not impossible) to open any security holes. If you are really
>> concerned about security in TeX, you could and should enhance the
>> web2c TeX distribution, not LaTeX.
>
> Lots of people have made claims that their software
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 12:19, David Carlisle wrote:
> If the command the latex uses isn't called latex then basically all bets
> are off and it can produce anything at all.
This is, I think, the most crucial part of this whole discussion.
I did not see any statement to this effect in the LPPL draf
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 12:23, Javier Bezos wrote:
> Let's put it in other words. TeX leaves to the distribution
> the decision about how files are read/written. tetex
> decides how files are read/written and it's under GPL. Thus, you
> can change it if you want. Nothing to do with LaTeX ot LPPL.
> A
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 06:19:38PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> Unfortunately "seems to me" is almost the only kind of comment that we get,
> it would be more helpful if anyone could give a more objective criterion
> that shows how LPPL breaks some clause of the DFSG, however not this
> example.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:35:23PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Sadly, you seem to have missed the point of Free Software altogether,
> which can be stated simply as: preventing anyone from having exclusive
> control of the software so that everyone can benefit.
(1) The intersection of those i
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 06:19:38PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> > Unfortunately "seems to me" is almost the only kind of comment that we get,
> > it would be more helpful if anyone could give a more objective criterion
> > that shows how LPPL breaks some clause of t
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 09:55:42PM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:35:23PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Sadly, you seem to have missed the point of Free Software altogether,
> > which can be stated simply as: preventing anyone from having exclusive
> > control of the s
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:55:42 +0100
> From: Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> (1) The intersection of those interested in LaTeX
> and those seriously interested in Debian is almost empty, I imagine.
> I would have said it was empty,
> except that Frank Mittelbach seems to belong to both
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 16:24, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> I completely disagree with these points.
[lots of nice things about Debian snipped - thanks, by the way]
> Having said this, I need to note that the integrity of my (La)TeX
> distribution on the production systems is higher in my priority list
David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that anyone should be free to modify latex in any way and
> distribute that modification. I just don't agree that they should leave
> my email address at the top as the place where people should report
> bugs, and I don't agree that they should ca
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 06:19:38PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> > > Unfortunately "seems to me" is almost the only kind of comment that we
> get,
> > > it would be more helpful if anyone could give a more objective cri
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> If these were the only restrictions (change contact info and change
> the name of the *program*, not the individual files), then we wouldn't
> be having this argument.
I am afraid you do not understand
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> Note that you do not need to this if you want to change latex
> behavior. Continuing the analogy, you do have an analog of LD_PRELOAD
> variable, so you do not need to hack libc.so to achieve anything.
But if there was a bug in libc I could fix it and
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 04:23:58PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I never claimed to have a monopoly on the word "free". I used the term
> "Free Software", which is much more specific and has a specific meaning
> to the community in which the term originated.
...
> That this discussion is bei
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 03:33:57 +0200
> From: Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote:
>
> > Note that you do not need to this if you want to change latex
> > behavior. Continuing the analogy, you do have an analog of LD_PRELOAD
> > variable, so you do no
> I did not see any statement to this effect in the LPPL draft that was
> posted here:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg7.html
>
> I would love to hear that I had completely missed it, or that you've
> changed the draft to include such a statement.
My un
> If these were the only restrictions (change contact info and change
> the name of the *program*, not the individual files), then we wouldn't
> be having this argument.
The filenames are part of the syntax of the language.
\documentclass{article}
does not mean "whatever article means on your
On 2002-07-17 14:24:15 -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 12:23, Javier Bezos wrote:
> > Let's put it in other words. TeX leaves to the distribution
> > the decision about how files are read/written. tetex
> > decides how files are read/written and it's under GPL. Thus, you
> > can
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 09:52:05PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> This is because libc on Linux is LGPL'ed. Now suppose that you work on
> a system where you cannot rename libc -- either because of license or
> because you are not a superuser. Still you can say something like
>
> export LD_PRELOAD
A short two cents from a user...
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > (1) The intersection of those interested in LaTeX and those
> > seriously interested in Debian is almost empty, I imagine.
I'm a LaTeX user and Debian developer.
> > (2
Scripsit David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> LaTeX is a set of macros. It doesn't actually have any capabilities to
> do anything.
telnetd is a set of machine-language instructions. It doesn't actually
have any capabilities to do anything.
> Any effect of running latex on a document is a result
> telnetd is a set of machine-language instructions. It doesn't actually
> have any capabilities to do anything.
This misses the point entirely so I'll try stating it another way.
latex essentially runs in a virtual machine provided by tex the program.
If you set the security options for tex-the
On 2002-07-18 17:18:23 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > LaTeX is a set of macros. It doesn't actually have any capabilities to
> > do anything.
>
> telnetd is a set of machine-language instructions. It doesn't actually
> have any capabilities to do an
Scripsit David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > telnetd is a set of machine-language instructions. It doesn't actually
> > have any capabilities to do anything.
> This misses the point entirely so I'll try stating it another way.
> latex essentially runs in a virtual machine provided by tex the p
> My point is that ..
I give up. I don't think your point makes any sense, and as you only
assert it without giving any reasons I don't see what else there is to
say on the issue.
There is in any case no point continuing the thread as this is really a
general discussion about the merits of
On 2002-07-18 17:54:31 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> My point is that there is no meaningful difference between "virtual"
> and "non-virtual" machines in this respect.
There is: You can not change the "real" machine (the cpu in your
example) while it's possible and legal to change the "virtual"
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > telnetd is a set of machine-language instructions. It doesn't actually
> > > have any capabilities to do anything.
>
> > This misses the point entirely so I'll try stating it another way.
> > latex essentially runs in a virtual machine provided by tex th
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 03:59, David Carlisle wrote:
> > I did not see any statement to this effect in the LPPL draft that was
> > posted here:
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg7.html
> >
> > I would love to hear that I had completely missed it, or that y
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 04:59, Martin Schröder wrote:
> On 2002-07-17 14:24:15 -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 12:23, Javier Bezos wrote:
> > > Let's put it in other words. TeX leaves to the distribution
> > > the decision about how files are read/written. tetex
> > > decides how
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 04:59, Martin Schröder wrote:
> The same applies to PostScript: One fixes security holes in the
> interpreter (e.g. GhostScript) and doesn't worry about the
> PostScript files.
Actually, afair, postscript is 'feature complete' on some platforms and
has the ability to muck wit
* Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020717 23:00]:
> (1) The intersection of those interested in LaTeX
> and those seriously interested in Debian is almost empty, I imagine.
> I would have said it was empty,
> except that Frank Mittelbach seems to belong to both sets.
It may be nearly empty for
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 11:59:37AM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
> This is absolutely relevant. LaTeX is just a set of macros run
> through an interpreter. The interpreter happens to be some
> implementation of TeX. The security problems will be in the
> interpreter, not in the macros. And the par
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:16:43 +0200
> From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I think noone wants to change the (La)TeX-Kernel, noone want do make
> .tex-file iterchange impossible. We all want the LaTeX to be the
> usefull crossplattform tool that it is.
>
> But though we do not wa
On Jul 19, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> The problem is, the first paragraph quoted above is not true. There
> are precedents when people changed important parts of TeX and LaTeX
> and distributed these changed files without clearly labeling them as
> such. AFAIK, there were only good intentions on the p
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 11:59:37AM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
>
>> This is absolutely relevant. LaTeX is just a set of macros run
>> through an interpreter. The interpreter happens to be some
>> implementation of TeX. The security problems will be in the
>> interpreter, not in the macros. And
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 04:25:35PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> The LPPL goes beyond what is allowed by DFSG #4. If the LPPL just
> said that you can't call the resulting program "latex", then it would
> be fine for Debian.
Actually, I dislike permitting even that, for a couple of reasons:
1)
On Fri, 2002-07-19 at 12:19, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I do not know whether a court would uphold a copyright license
> that attempted to enforce a "poor man's trademark" by conditionally
> extending the license to a party contingent on that party's not using a
> particular name or title in a parti
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:45:35 +1200
> From: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Under the LPPL we are not allowed to fix the engine either; we have to wait
> for D. E. Knuth to do it. Which I'm sure he would do, unless he happened
> to have been run over by a bus that morning (unlikely, as
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:38:03 -0400
> From: Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> LaTeX. Actually, there ARE non-TeX programs that use LaTeX as macro
> packages. The most popular among such programs is pdftex. I use pdftex
> almost as often as tex. When pdftex is called as pdflatex, it loads
>
On Fri, 2002-07-19 at 15:38, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:45:35 +1200
> > From: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > If on the other hand the LaTeX license allowed us to do "whatever we like,
> > so long as anything that's called LaTeX produces identical output
> > (docu
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:24:24 -0500
> From: Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> How does the LPPL actually prevent a distributor from FUBARing their
> distribution of LaTeX? The fact is people regularly ignore licenses,
> copyrights, patents and trademarks (if this weren't the case, there
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 04:38:03PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> This is impossible due to a nice rendition of Goedel
> theorem. Basically it says that if your language is complex enough
> (well, if you can program a Turing machine in your language), then you
> cannot make a program that can in fi
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:19:07 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 1) Names and titles are not copyrightable. If you want intellectual
> property protection in a name, you need a trade mark, service mark,
> certification mark, or similar instrument.
>
I afraid this is not
* Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020719 12:48]:
> > I think noone wants to change the (La)TeX-Kernel, noone want do make
> > .tex-file iterchange impossible. We all want the LaTeX to be the
> > usefull crossplattform tool that it is.
>
> The problem is, the first paragraph quoted above is not
* Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020719 20:22]:
> > I do not know whether a court would uphold a copyright license
> > that attempted to enforce a "poor man's trademark" by conditionally
> > extending the license to a party contingent on that party's not using a
> > particular name or title in a
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 01:28:53AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> So, you are defending abstract principles against a very unlikely
It sounds like you're dismissing Debian's strict free software principles
because they're "abstract".
Don't forget, however, that they're abstract principles that ha
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 01:28:53AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > So, you are defending abstract principles against a very unlikely
>
> It sounds like you're dismissing Debian's strict free software principles
> because they're "abstract".
I for my part am not dissm
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There are a number of myths it seems concerning what is allowed or
> not and how LPPL must or can be applied.
> here are some of them:
> - to fork you have to rename every package under LPPL
> all of them wrong (and explained over and over again
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > There are a number of myths it seems concerning what is allowed or
> > not and how LPPL must or can be applied.
>
> > here are some of them:
>
> > - to fork you have to rename every package under LPPL
>
> >
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> no. *each* file that you change must be renamed, but where is the
> problem here? I think it has also been demonstrated that is neither
> excessive nor in conflict with DSFG 3+4
Why is renaming important to you at all?
Why not simply require a notic
On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 09:49:15PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > > - to fork you have to rename every package under LPPL
> >
> > > all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by now)
> >
> > It has been *asserted* over and over again that this is wrong, but
> > that assertati
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > no. *each* file that you change must be renamed, but where is the
> > problem here? I think it has also been demonstrated that is neither
> > excessive nor in conflict with DSFG 3+4
>
> Why is renaming import
Glenn Maynard writes:
> As long as you offer DFSG-free options, you can offer as many other
> options as you want. You can say: "you can distribute modified files if
> 1: you rename the program to something other than 'Latex', 2: you rename
> all modified files, *or* 3: you swear loyalty to Fr
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> no. *each* file that you change must be renamed, but where is the problem
> here? I think it has also been demonstrated that is neither excessive nor in
> conflict with DSFG 3+4
I still think it can be viewed as excessive. Let me explain.
Imagine t
On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 11:04:42PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > As long as you offer DFSG-free options, you can offer as many other
> > options as you want. You can say: "you can distribute modified files if
> > 1: you rename the program to something other than 'Latex', 2: you rename
> >
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > no. *each* file that you change must be renamed, but where is the problem
> > here? I think it has also been demonstrated that is neither excessive nor
> > in
> > conflict with DSFG 3+4
>
> I still think it can
Glenn Maynard writes:
> > i don't want an explanation for #3 :-) but I would like to see an argument
> > for
> > #2 not being DSFG-complient.
>
> "4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
>
> The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
> form _only_ if the li
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:15:42AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> i have heard that statement before, but to me it doesn't follow from DSFG 4
> and others (regulars on this list I presume) have in my understanding also
> expressed that. Not everybody --- the camp is clearly divided.
I havn't see
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:15:42AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > i have heard that statement before, but to me it doesn't follow from DSFG 4
> > and others (regulars on this list I presume) have in my understanding also
> > expressed that. Not everybody --- the camp
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> on the other hand, no (usable) suggestions so far were put up on how to solve
> that exchangibility feature of LaTeX (not the nonLaTeX startinf from a kernel
> fork) otherwise. Branden tried but he thought of LaTeX being a monolith
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - to get support from the kernel for a new package you have to fork the
>kernel
> - when modifying all future names pile up as being unchangeable
>
> all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by now)
I must be thick headed. How can
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 07:27:49PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> I afraid this is not -- so at least for some jurisdictions. I am not a
> lawyer, but it happened that I have been closely watching a lawsuit in
> Russia, where the plaintiff alleged that title is an important part of
> a copyrighted
Walter Landry writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - to get support from the kernel for a new package you have to fork the
> >kernel
> > - when modifying all future names pile up as being unchangeable
> >
> > all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > Imagine that I want to create a typesetting system that behaves just
> > like LaTeX on all input files, except that input files that say
> > something like
> > \documentclass[12pt]{article}
> > will actually be
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 20 Jul 2002 20:15:30 +0200
>
> > - to fork you have to rename every package under LPPL
>
> > all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by now)
>
> It has been *asserted* over and over again that this is wrong, but
> that assertati
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 20 Jul 2002 23:32:48 +0200
>
> I still think it can be viewed as excessive. Let me explain.
>
> Imagine that I want to create a typesetting system that behaves just
> like LaTeX on all input files, except that input files that say
> something
Henning Makholm writes:
> > [example of the complex way removed]
>
> I thought I argued in quite a level of detail why it is the *only* way
> that is allowed by the renaming rule. If you think my arguments are
> wrong, could you please explain why in more detail than just
> dismissing them a
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 18:41, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:15:42AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > i have heard that statement before, but to me it doesn't follow from DSFG 4
> > and others (regulars on this list I presume) have in my understanding also
> > expressed that. No
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 05:11:07PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this
> now.
Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license?
(You can change "ls" all you want as long as you rename the binary)
Richard Braakman
--
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:25:42AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this
> > now.
>
> Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license?
> (You can change "ls" all you want as long as you rename the binary)
It seem
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 17:25, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 05:11:07PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this
> > now.
>
> Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license?
> (You can change "ls" all
1 - 100 of 268 matches
Mail list logo
