On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 16:00:03 UTC, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > > >> Dima, in fact, it's not soooo easy with (La)TeX. It depends on how > >> you see it. One way is that TeX (the program) is a compiler that > >> translates the sources (i.e. .tex, .sty, and .bib, ... files -- > >> which can count as the program sources since TeX is a programming > >> language). Then the .dvi or .pdf file would be considered as the > >> compiled form of the sources. With this point of view, Waldek is > >> right. > > > > I don't get your point. There is no problem like this with GPL, and I > > don't know why this was mentioned in the 1st place... Surely you can > > put out a software with a license saying that by using it you sell > > yourself into slavery, but this does not mean that something is wrong > > with GPL... > > I never said that something is wrong with GPL. Quite the contrary. I'd > like to have GPL for FriCAS. > > >> But I don't really think that most people thing that way. > >> Unfortunately, there is no clear statement from the FSF about this. > > >> But also this is somehow a non-issue. If my published paper would > >> be GPL then I have to provide the .tex and .sty files. So what? > > > Why is that even mentioned? There are no GPL-licensed programs that > > tell you anything about copyright of the data you process with them. > > Although, I somehow see it like you, it is not that easy with (La)TeX. > > Let's try to make to other viewpoint clearer. There is TP (TeX the > program, i.e. the program that translates .tex+.sty into .dvi) and there > is TL (the TeX language). All my .tex and .sty files are written in the > TL. The TL is a programming language. TP is the compiler that translates > my program (.tex + .sty) into binary form (.dvi). Now according to GPL, > that would probably mean that if one .sty file is under GPL, the whole > .dvi is under GPL, so also all the respective .tex files that are used > to produce this .dvi are under GPL. >
Your C, etc., programs also use *.h files, which might be under GPL (e.g. on Linux lots of them are). This does not automatically put your own C program under GPL. Cf e.g. http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html Certainly, (La)TeX .sty files are macro files, just like .h files are. So the fear that GPLed .sty files can infect, license-wise, your own TeX files is unfounded. > > Not that like to take this point of view and it is somehow questionable > to consider a .dvi file as a (runnable) program, but it's a way of > seeing this situation. > > Of course, I see it like you and wouldn't believe that the use of a > GPL'd .sty file would mean GPL for my .tex file(s) if I distribute the > .dvi. However, have you any argument against the above way of seeing the > situation? > > It's just that I find it sometimes unpredictable how lawyers argue. > Just a funny story here. Sorry, it's only in German. > > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Uhrzeit-ablesen-beim-Autofahren-ist-verbotene-Handynutzung-2498870.html > > I wonder what the judges had decided if the smartphone were smaller and > looked more like a watch. > > Ralf > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
