Hi Phillip,
We are not talking about native English speakers here, but legal language.
How a court will decide, depends on many factors.
Either way, we can only speculate what will happen and we do not know
the true intension of the author.
regards
Keith.
Am 26.10.2011 um 10:49
There's hardly big bucks involved here.
If you think you can improve the performance of this package,
while retaining its overall structure, then the nicest way
to do it is to write a small wrapper package that requires
ucharclass and then patches some of its internal macros
to work more
Keith J. Schultz wrote:
2) Intellectual Property Rights
This controls modification of code and use thereof.
In our case, the author discourages this, and basically
denies us the right to do it.
He does /not/ deny you the right to do so; he
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
He does /not/ deny you the right to do so; he discourages
you, which any competent native speaker of English would
recognise as being completely different.
I'm sure any competent lawyer will tell you that if you do something that
has
O.K. I will jump in here.
Intellectual property rights are often a great big gray zone.
Maybe, it is time the author of the package speaks up himself
what is meant.
Also, it does seem clear if the code being used or parts thereof are from a
different party, who may or may not have rights which
It's weird Mike hasn't replied yet, but I vaguely remember him saying
that he wanted to prevent fragmentation of the package.
That being said, the terms of the license don't prohibit you from
posting code that modifies the package (going back to a question in
Bruno's original post). Nor does it
Am 25.10.2011 10:30, schrieb Keith J. Schultz:
O.K. I will jump in here.
Intellectual property rights are often a great big gray zone.
Maybe, it is time the author of the package speaks up himself
what is meant.
That would help.
Also, it does seem clear if the code being used or parts
2011/10/25 Tobias Schoel liesdieda...@googlemail.com:
Am 25.10.2011 10:30, schrieb Keith J. Schultz:
O.K. I will jump in here.
Intellectual property rights are often a great big gray zone.
Maybe, it is time the author of the package speaks up himself
what is meant.
That would help.
*sigh*
On 10/23/11, Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/23 Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk:
Tobias Schoel wrote:
Besides, I also wouldn't do, if it was allowed. Who knows, what methods
the author employs in order to enforce the discouragement? ;-)
I
No, the license of the package in not LPPL. In fact, it is non-free and that
is why it is not included in TeXLive. The README in License section says:
You
may freely use this package, but you are discouraged from
modifying this package and then redistributing it. Instead,
please contact me
please contact me (ideally on the XeTeX mailing list) and
we can discuss the changes you wish to make. If they
benefit everyone, they will be worked in as a new version.
I would like to invoke that clause.
I am definitely not planning to release any modified version of the package.
Vafa Khalighi wrote:
No, the license of the package in not LPPL. In fact, it is non-free and that is why it is
not included in TeXLive. The README in License section says:
You
may freely use this package, but you are discouraged from
modifying this package and then redistributing it.
Yes, firstly because it does not make the software free any more (not just
free in price but also free in modification, etc) and secondly LPPL never
discourage you from modifying the software.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Vafa
I can not comment on the difference between discouraged and prohibited
since I am Persian not British but certainly if I am discouraged from
modifying a package, I feel that I am prohibited from modifying that
package.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
clearly they are -- but in terms of actual requirements. Since
you are only discouraged from and not prohibited from
making changes, I believe that a court of law would find that
there is no actual
I'm German, so I have neither the linguistic nor the judicial
background. Alas, I can add my mustard (German Saying):
Discouraged is not the same as prohibited. So the license does not
prohibit redistributing it in a modified version. But in most countries
this doesn't matter, as copyright
Tobias Schoel wrote:
Besides, I also wouldn't do, if it was allowed. Who knows, what methods the
author employs in order to enforce the “discouragement”? ;-)
I believe a much-loved horse's head in one's bed
is generally favoured in such circumstances !
** Phil.
2011/10/23 Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk:
Tobias Schoel wrote:
Besides, I also wouldn't do, if it was allowed. Who knows, what methods
the author employs in order to enforce the discouragement? ;-)
I believe a much-loved horse's head in one's bed
is generally
Hello all,
Loading the ucharclasses package with no option is extremely slow (
2min on my installation), because it loads every Unicode block (as
documented).
The performance can be significantly improved by using lower-level
code for the loops. For instance, using the following helper macro
19 matches
Mail list logo
