On 7/23/19 6:49 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> In the light of the currently discussed GR proposal, I wonder if the
> following license clause would be considered DFSG-free and GPL-compatible:
>
> ##
> I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
> Thus,
Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
The Transitive Grace Period Public Licence (TGPPL) is a licence that I
wrote by adding a small clause to the Open Source License v3.0. The
TGPPL is a copyleft or transitive licence -- it offers you the
right to make derived works on the condition that you extend the
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Kern Sibbald wrote:
1. Build it from source yourself (perfectly legal -- only distribution
violates the GPL license).
Isn't it the FSF's position that user does the link violates GPL?
No. Please read the GPL.
I suggest you Google up user does the
Francesco Poli wrote:
I think you chose the wrong example: the written offer possibility
(clause 3b in GPLv2, clause 6b in GPLv3) is a non-free path through the
GPL.
In other words, if making the written offer were the *only* way to
distribute GPL'd object code, the GPL would *not* meet the
Francesco Poli wrote:
Am I failing to comply with the license?
The only person who could say for sure would be a judge.
But, in general, it's worth noting that the law is not as robotic as
this. We could imagine all kinds of scenarios that could be construed
as violations of all kinds of
severity 451647 serious
thanks
Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
Today I've filed a bugreport http://bugs.debian.org/451647 against
wacom-tools package. Its copyright file imho violates the policy (I
think I can cite it here since it is quite concise)
,---
| This package was created by Ron Lee [EMAIL
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Anyway, in Europe you cannot agree on a contract that you do not yet know and
for this reason, a text like GPLv2 or any later is void.
Why? Assuming the rest of your characterizations for the sake of
argument, two contracts currently exist which meet those criteria.
Stephen Gran wrote:
I have been under the impression that the answer is no. You're not
linking L to OpenSSL. It could be argued that this was an attempt at
defeating the GPL if P was a thin shim layer between L and OpenSSL,
but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that for our default
This is not legal advice. If you need good legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
2. Y modifies this program to use Qt (under the GPL), creating
02-qt-nothirdvar.cpp, and distributes it under both the BSDL and GPL.
1)
Please explain how this is
Jenner Fusari wrote:
Jeff Licquia ha scritto:
From the free software side, there should be very few problems.
Linkage might be an issue. If the non-free app links to works
licensed under the GNU GPL, there's an exception that allows this *if
the two works are not distributed together*, which
Francesco Poli wrote:
Well, I made a detailed analysis of the issues I see in CC-by(-sa)-v3.0
licenses.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html
Just saying that they are in spirit the same as GPL is *not* a
convincing
Jenner Fusari wrote:
is it possible to use Debian as the base for a Live CD intended to
present a commercial (non free) software (test and evaluate it in its
demo version)? Is there any legal issue on doing this?
There could be; we have no idea.
From the free software side, there should be
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Sure, the code is fine with older Emacs. We simply shouldn't install it
and set it up for GPL v3 versions of Emacs.
*If* there is a violation (and I'm still not convinced), this isn't a
solution, at least not for Debian.
The GPL is all about distribution and
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 17:32 +0200, Cord Beermann wrote:
I want to add a package to Debian with the following
License-Statement:
The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License.
You are free to use and modify the
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 14:44 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
How many participants in the KDE/Qt brouhaha actually cited relevant
case law?
I recall that quite a bit of case law was discussed. Perhaps the
debian-legal archives could tell you more.
In any case, there's a perfectly good
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 03:55 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Let me try again. Eben Moglen has a J. D. from Yale. He has been
admitted to the bar in New York and before the Supreme Court. He has
clerked in district court and for Justice Thurgood Marshall. He has
held a professorship of law
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 13:11 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 8/2/05, Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RMS doesn't preach the economic superiority of free software. If you
fail to understand even such a well-explained position I wonder what
your references to all kinds of
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 10:52 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded, the
FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian should
re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking.
If you can prove that the FSF
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 15:21 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
No, I just explained where I was coming from in characterizing RMS's
public posture as preach[ing] the economic superiority of the free
software system. How you can call this an attempt to shut down the
debate is beyond me. If you
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work has a
definition in the statute (in the US case, 17USC).
Hmm. I suppose this is part and parcel of the
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 14:42 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
** Jeff Licquia ::
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work
has
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 12:00 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The message to which I pointed you has a link back into the main fray
(threads with titles like Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev
replacement, GPL and linking, and What makes software
copyrightable anyway?). I've put
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 11:59 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
GStreamer's build process builds separate binaries for the various
plugins, these are then dlopened when requested.
I would personnally think that installing only Debian's GStreamer
packages that are linked to LGPL libraries doesn't
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 21:46 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Saturday 23 July 2005 08:04 pm, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 17:11 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
This is a difficult situation that is worth commentary. Assume for a
moment that the U.S. has some strict export
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 20:50 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
The GStreamer suite ships a lot of plugins which are dlopened() when
needed. Some of them link with GPL libraries.
I received a bug report (#317129) to change the copyright files of
libgstreamer0.8-0 and gstreamer0.8-mad to GPL.
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 17:11 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
This is a difficult situation that is worth commentary. Assume for a moment
that the U.S. has some strict export restriction. As a U.S. citizen I am
bound by those laws and cannot legally violate them. Further, if I am to
distribute
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 10:19 -0700, Gregor Richards wrote:
In response to Still unworkable. I want to use the code for some
embedded use ...
How is this unworkable? To support the HTTP protocol to the degree of
sending source code does not require a full HTTP sever per se. Hell,
you could
After the last round of discussions, the LaTeX Project has asked me to
review and present a new revision of the LPPL, which is attached below.
It is unlikely that I will be able to participate in the discussion this
time around due to time constraints, but the LaTeX people should be
around to
,
not by the author of his or her software.
With free software and free documentation, there's no need to limit
either's choice. If the user doesn't like the author's choice of words
or quoting habits, the user is free to change them.
--
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to comprise The Work.
--
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 17:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:39:44AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Right, but as I just posted a little bit ago, a restriction to a problem
domain is just one type of specificity. See the GPL, section 2c, for
another, one that I think
be accompanied by a section under WHETHER AND HOW TO
DISTRIBUTE WORKS UNDER THIS LICENSE talking about ways to ensure that
derived works can adhere to 5.a.2.
I'd really like to hear Frank or David's thoughts on this new wording,
since we're moving into some different territory here. What do you
think?
--
Jeff
of the problem, though, involves programmatic interfaces for a
program to identify itself as Standard LaTeX. It must be clear that
any Derived Work not identifying itself as Standard LaTeX can be
modified/distributed with only certain non-controversial restrictions
(copyright notices, etc.)
--
Jeff
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 22:24, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain
elements that are specific to the problem domain?
I acknowledge it in principle, except it turns out that I don't buy
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 00:44, Walter Landry wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain
elements that are specific to the problem domain?
Of course I don't acknowledge that. One of the wonderful things about
free software
and non-free otherwise.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I acknowledge that this may be true. Regarding LaTeX, is it?
I don't know. Does the current Base Format do any such validation? If
so (or if it becomes so), then it's a problem. If not, then this clause
is unnecessary
to insist that a license be clearly
free in isolation.
Do you want us to post a tarball of LaTeX? Alternatively, if you have
questions about implementation, could you not ask the LaTeX people?
I've seen David Carlisle, at least, post to this thread.
--
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 20:49, Walter Landry wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote:
I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the
context of LaTeX, not in the context of all of free software. We
can't say
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 17:59, Walter Landry wrote:
I don't think that it is prohibitively complicated. I think it is
impossible. The LaTeX people can't live with a free license. There
is too little control.
Well, I suppose there's no convincing someone who has made up their
mind.
--
Jeff
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 11:50, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The filename limitations are now optional; 5.a.1 is one possibility of
three. As for 5.a.2 and the programmatic identification strings, can
you elaborate? Considering that much of the wording
not? We aren't proposing relicensing anything under this license
except for LaTeX itself.
Indeed, I would strongly advise against using this license for anything
except for LaTeX-related things. That isn't relevant to whether LaTeX,
licensed under this license, is free or not.
--
Jeff Licquia
prefer that they use the GPL, personally, but that isn't going
to happen.
--
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
That's basically the idea. *If* there is a validation mechanism, and
*if* the module uses the validation mechanism to assert it is Standard
LaTeX, then when you change the file, you must ensure
this problem?
--
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Work under a DWTFYW[0] license, plus
the condition that it never be distributed as files named pig.*
I believe this is correct.
I'm curious what the reasoning is for this clause.
I'll leave that to the LaTeX people to respond to, if they wish.
--
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have attached a new working draft for the LaTeX Project Public License
(LPPL) below.
After the debate that took place months ago, I and several members of
the LaTeX Project worked off and on towards solving the problems that
had been raised before. This version, a near-total rewrite, is the
not be used in advertising or
otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Font
Software without prior written authorization from the Gnome Foundation
or Bitstream, Inc., respectively. For further information, contact:
fonts at gnome dot org.
-
--
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
situation with mplayer is as you say, then
apt-get install mplayer should be a reality in a jiffy.
That is your goal, right? Or are you (and others) just interested in
slamming people when you say things like that?
--
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 11:52, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 03:05:04PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I suppose it depends on whose resources are being wasted. Certainly the
GNU project's resources aren't.
Perhaps not directly. Who knows how many people who would otherwise
On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 13:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 12:32:34PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Well, this is the GNU project we're talking about. How much
GPL-incompatible software do they distribute?
None that I know of. Are you ascribing to the GNU project
it depends on whose resources are being wasted. Certainly the
GNU project's resources aren't.
FWIW, porting to the native API didn't turn out to be difficult. If the
GNU TLS project doesn't bend on the licensing issue, it might behoove us
to write a Porting HOWTO, or some such.
--
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL
or Andrew would please let me know what decision is reached, I
would greatly appreciate it. Thanks for your work.
--
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 01:12, Walter Landry wrote:
Similar arguments were made during the KDE-Qt mess. There weren't any
authors who were threatening anyone. I'm really not a big fan of
hoping someone doesn't sue. Debian does that for patents because it
wouldn't be able to function
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 17:11, Henning Makholm wrote:
Yes, but do we then have any good-faith basis for assuming that one
can use the files in a commercial product (such as a Debian cd-rom
sold for profit) witout infringing anybody's copyright?
Whose copyright? And how would they prove it?
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 08:45, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Actually it is not that simple, libmysql/* is LGPL but mysqld_error.h
which is included by net.c is GPL.
That's silly. It's most likely an error. Can MySQL AB clarify it for
us?
On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 01:02, Andrew Lau wrote:
I just looked at that
cupsys-1.1.15/config-scripts/cups-openssl.m4 and I find no mention of
GnuTLS in there at all. Then I took at look at debian/rules and
noticed that cupsys isn't even built with SSL or TLS enabled.
./configure
On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 13:54, Henning Makholm wrote:
Man, you're way out. Some people (not all developers) point out that
the Database Directive exists. Not a word has been said about it being
supreme in any way. It exists. That is all. It that so har to grasp?
Since we acknowledge that it
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 17:03, Sam Hartman wrote:
But I have encountered click-through licenses that did not require me
to agree to such conditions and that were click-throughs for DFSG
licenses. I have never found a click-through for a GPL subset.
http://easysw.com/htmldoc/software.php
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 15:33, David Turner wrote:
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 00:36, Jeff Licquia wrote:
While the decision found that blueprints could consititute part of a
substantial portion of the components, it was clear that paper and glue
were also needed. It's not clear to me
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 19:34, David Turner wrote:
I found a case which says that blueprints are components in the sense
meant by (c) (well, actually (f), but it's the same language) above:
Moore U.S.A. Inc. v. Standard Register, No. 98-CV-485C(F), 2001.
I've uploaded it to
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 13:08, Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:58:50AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
You have to take it out of whatever Debian distributes. I can
download the the .orig.tar.gz file, so it can't be in that. Even if
[I should point out that, though I am a Progeny employee, this is not an
official statement from Progeny. I am speaking merely as a Debian
developer, and not one vested with any official capacity beyond the
normal privileges associated with membership in the project.]
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 15:58, David Turner wrote:
35 USC 271 says:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without
authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention,
within the United States or imports into the United States any patented
invention during
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 14:44, Henning Makholm wrote:
The mind boggles. How does one abide with (3) without breaking (4)?
The notice in (3) is a statement of fact, not an endorsement.
On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 08:05, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Congratulations on making the front page of Slashdot.
It seems that you're referring to
http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/02/10/12/1926242.shtml?tid=106
but I don't see any comments about
On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 18:38, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
Auke Jilderda wrote:
1. Free Software is geared towards idealism whereas Open Source aims
for pragmatism. In my opinion, both are essential to making this the
succes it is. (Personally, I tend a bit more towards Open Source
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 19:28, Steve Langasek wrote:
So the options are that you could secure a clarification of the GPL's OS
exemption from the FSF, in the form of a new revision of the GPL, that
permits what you're asking; or you can find a way to replace OpenSSL in
the build with a library
On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 07:47, Florian Weimer wrote:
What's the approach to documentation whose source code (preferred form
of modification) is only available in a format for which no free
compilers exist?
For example, the Ada Reference Manual is written in a Scribe-like
language. (Scribe
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 21:20, Lukas Geyer wrote:
The South African government passed a law (apparently two
month ago) which requires all crypto providers to register with the
government for some fee. The law can be found under
http://co.za/ect/a25-02.pdf (this is ridiculously large, seems to be
On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 09:30, Joe Moore wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(quoting the relevant law)
There is a definitions section, in which we find:
-
cryptography product means any product that makes use of
cryptographic techniques and is used by a sender or recipient
(Sorry for the massive CCs; please let me know if you read the list and
don't want more.)
On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 08:18, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
It has been argued (during the LaTeX license debate) that the license
may require derived works to carry a different name refers to the
software or
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 14:53, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Read it as as an additional restriction, all additional materials
mentioning ... It's still a restriction, and a cumbersome one.
I don't recall what makes advertising clauses DFSG-free. Unenforcability?
It doesn't violate DFSG 9, because
On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 08:56, martin f krafft wrote:
[please CC me on replies]
Those whose work is in agreement with [1] may freely use, modify,
or distribute this under the same terms. Those who don't may
not.
1. http://www.debian.org/social_contract/
This
On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 18:40, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And note that it begins with I decided to put these fonts into the
public domain; all I have asked is
On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 00:54, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:31:52PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Please point out exactly which section of the GPL would grant us such
rights. Remember, rights not explicitly granted are withheld under
default copyright law.
1. You may
On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 10:18, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
If you took the obfuscated code, did your best to unobfuscate it by
applying both automatic reformating and manual editing, and then made
some functional changes in it, or even non-functional changes, such as
adding comments, I think you
On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 02:08, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:27:29AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You're the one amending selected from those forms which are available
to you. The GPL *doesn't say that*. Maybe it's your definition of
source, but it's not the GPL's.
I
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 18:44, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:19:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
While the copyright holder can certainly distribute obfuscated source
and no one can tell him not to, the GNU GPL by which the licensees
(i.e., we, and our users) are bound
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 20:42, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 07:57:50PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Consider the case where a GPLed program is distributed with .o files
that are linked in at link time. The author could say, under the same
logic and with a straight face
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 09:50, C.M. Connelly wrote:
JL == Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WL == Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JL There's a new draft floating around. It also has
JL problems, but is closer to what we need, and I think the
JL problems can be worked out. I owe
On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 12:11, Walter Landry wrote:
What is the current status of the LaTeX License? It seems like the
LaTeX people and the Debian people have a fundamental disagreement.
Is this the end of things? Is LaTeX going into non-free?
There's a new draft floating around. It also has
On Sun, 2002-08-25 at 07:51, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Let's consider that theoretical case (not that much theoretical, as I
know a real case) : a GPL'ed library, say libmysqlclient, has bindings
for an interpreter (python, PHP, perl). Then, there is a non-free
software that makes use of these
On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 06:54, Joe Drew wrote:
On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 06:30, RSAEuro General wrote:
The second problem is in Item 2, (ii,iii, and v), which restricts those
who may wish to use the software for profit. These restrictions render the
license incompatible with Free Software
On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 14:30, Lars Hellström wrote:
On 04 Aug 2002 20:22:11 -0500, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 17:53, Lars Hellström wrote:
FUD ?
On what do you base your opinion that intent has any significance for
whether the GPL allows an action?
Well
On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 17:47, Lars Hellström wrote:
Whereas this in principle could affect the inclusion-of-font-in-PS matter,
I doubt that it will in practice. It does however seem to me that this
aspect has a direct application to another matter, namely that of tarballs.
Jeff claimed in our
On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 12:47, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 05:58:19PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
When I sent my ITP on debian-devel today, Moshe Zadka claimed that
even distributing maria-viz would be illegal.
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 17:24, Lars Hellström wrote:
It odd to see such a conviction that this is aggregation, which is
harmless here on this list, considering that it was recently claimed that
a tarball (!) must be considered to be single work until proof of the
contrary has been obtained,
On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 17:53, Lars Hellström wrote:
At 00.53 +0200 2002-08-03, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Lars Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I doubt this argument could work. However if it did then it certainly would
provide a technical solution to the (obnoxious?) GPL
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 10:58, Andrew Lau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 12:34:56PM +0200, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
W li?cie z ?ro, 31-07-2002, godz. 16:40, Andrew Lau pisze:
Has the GPL been given additional OpenSSL exclusion clause or sth?
Please clarify
I've just checked the COPYING
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 10:58, Andrew Lau wrote:
As cups-pt (the current Debian package name)...
Oh, one more thing. CUPS is a trademark of Easy Software Products.
Now, Mike Sweet over there is a great guy and probably wouldn't try to
whack you for using it in the package name, but you never
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'm torn
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 16:36, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The license text would say something like this:
-
The Program may be modified in any way as long as one of the following
conditions are met:
- No part of Standard LaTeX is changed
On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 11:58, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 16:36, Henning Makholm wrote:
If you want to modify a package [say, one that is not part of the
core LaTeX distribution, but one whose author has independently
put it under the LPPL], you must either
1
On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 10:57, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 02:14:18PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The license text would say something like this:
-
The Program may be modified in any way as long as one of the following
conditions are met:
- No part
On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 14:18, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 11:58:46AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
That is correct. However, causing a hacked, non-renamed, non-retokened
file to be loaded and run by Standard LaTeX would be a license
violation.
No. Only distributing
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 as a gesture
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
Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I'm confused. How are they incompatible?
They're incompatible because the intent is to write programs that check
this string and behave differently if it does not give the
forbidden-in-changed-works answer.
Maybe I'm just dense, but I still don't see
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
identify
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
proposed anyway.
1 - 100 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
