Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 01:10:51PM -0500, David Starner wrote: At 09:42 PM 8/6/02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 03:02:59AM -0500, David Starner wrote: The amount of money to be got from a unknowing non-commercial infringer is also pretty limited. The issue isn't how badly we can be hurt. Part of the issue is how badly someone wants to hurt us. No, that's really entirely irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is whether we're violating IP laws or not, not whether patent holders think we are, nor whether copyright holders don't really care. Distributing large amounts of software that we didn't write, and that we don't have a large body of software patents to trade on, inherently opens us up to lawsuits. Only in the same sense that breathing can open you up to lawsuits. Did you look at the link? We have distributed many packages with code we had no right to distribute. Yes, that happens quite regularly. Once we find out, we fix it. That's the way it works. Getting paniced about it isn't helpful. wanted to spend the time learning about the issues involved enough to talk to lawyers about ensuring that it was done in such a way that wasn't directly or indirectly violating US laws, we might be able to one day have such a place. What's up with the whole talking with lawyers thing? It certainly didn't stop us from moving LZW to non-free and RSA to non-US in the past. Try to keep the context: if we're ever going to try for some patent/DMCA-free archive, someone needs to talk to people who actually know the law to make sure we don't do anything completely stupid. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Re: Bug#155721: psi: psi is gpl links to libqssl1 whose license should be modified lgpl therefore not allowed...
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:32:35PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote: psi uses a library, libqssl1 which is lgpl. However, since it links Psi does work perfectly well without libqssl1 installed. So I wouldn't say it's linked with libqssl1. Look at it this way: Psi, without qssl, surely is not a problem. Yes, it contains some provision to add a feature that can not be used, but well, there are loads of unimplemented features in several GPL programs. Then, we would violate GPL if we distributed a 'derivative work' of psi and a non-GPL program. But without modifying psi, how could we create a derivative work, just by adding a second package which could possibly combined with psi by the user? IMHO, this is as much a copyright violation as distributing bash and some shell scripts which are not GPL. I'll reassign this bug to libqssl1, because if we come to the conclusion that there is a copyright violation, I'll remove libqssl1 and not psi, until there is a solution. (Either a GNUTLS version of qssl, or a changed license) Jan
Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL
Hi Grzegorz Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: Hello! A friend of mine reminded me lately, that libreadline is GPL not LGPL library so it can only be used in GPL-compatible software. However AFAIK GPL is incompatible with MPL type licenses like IPL used by FireBird (http://firebird.sourceforge.net/index.php?op=docid=ipl ) I am Cc:ing debian-legal to be corrected if I am wrong somewhere. Sure sounds a good idea to get it checked out, I know that it's a debatable topic on readline, particularly since it's in a shared library, and we don't redistribute readline with our binaries, since it's already included in linux. Now - I've had a bit of a further read, and from what I've read, it's probably ok for me to build and to distribute my stuff, since I don't distribute readline as well, but apparently the debate seems to be if there is a conflict for debian to ship both readline and firebird together. A legal opinion sounds good (Im glad there's someone to provide one). I'd suggest using editline as a replacement, which is available under BSD-type license. About libeditline I can read: Description: Line editing library similar to readline This is a line-editing library. It can be linked into almost any program to provide command-line editing and recall. It is call-compatible with a subset of the FSF readline library, but it is a fraction of the size (and offers fewer features). This is the runtime library only. So I think it would be good to link that lib and use it's features and NOT to GNU libreadline. However it may be not 100% drop-in replacement. a bit more about it, libeditline: This is a line-editing library. It can be linked into almost any program to provide command-line editing and recall. It is call-compatible with a subset of the FSF readline library, but it is a fraction of the size (and offers fewer features). Basically I'm happy to swap to editline. Call compatible is all I need. Cheers thanks. Mark
Re: Software Patents Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness
Richard Braakman wrote: On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 08:50:11PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote: You can also reason, if a program can cause a general purpose processor to do the same thing as a dedicated hardware board can do, and that board does something patentable, then the program must also be patentable. Otherwise you're being unfair to the inventor. This is what the Dutch patent office (Octrooiraad) did in the early '90s with a novel telephony switch. Ugh. And here I thought the whole point of a patent was to cover a novel method of achieving something, not to grant a monopoly on the thing to be achieved. Patents give you a monopoly not only on methods, but also on things. The requirement is that the invention is novel and inventive. If you can demonstrate that, you can stop anyone from making, using or selling things that incorporate the invention. I'm not sure what you mean with monopoly on the thing to be achieved. You can't patent something speculative, you have to explain how to do it in sufficient detail. But if you do that, then you can patent a machine that is arranged to do it. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, (almost) Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 05:00:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: No, that's really entirely irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is whether we're violating IP laws or not, not whether patent holders think we are, nor whether copyright holders don't really care. Is it? That's easy: we are violating IP laws. gcc is known to infringe on a at least one patent. RMS himself has stated this in a USPTO hearing about the value of software patents. Of course, he refrained from saying which one :) (His speech is archived at http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/rms-pto.html) We can't handle patents in a sane and consistent manner, because we're distributing software, and software patents are not sane. The only feasible way is to deal with patent threats in an ad-hoc manner, when they arise. At that point it becomes very relevant who wants to hurt us, and why, and what their means are. If you're saying, we can ignore this threat because Fraunhofer doesn't have a leg to stand on, then that's fine with me. But please don't try to generalize it into a rule about our reaction to patent threats. It just doesn't work, there is no such rule that makes sense. Unisys didn't have a leg to stand on about LZW either (IBM had an older patent on the same algorithm), but we moved GIF encoders to non-free anyway -- more as a political statement than anything else. Richard Braakman
Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with
Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: Even then (if you could) - the user using such FireBird would be violating GPL, as he would effectively link GPL-incompatible program to GPLed library (he won't be able and/or will not want to use empty, stub lib). Is this really the case? IANAL, but I was under the impression that the GPL does not restrict any sort of modification as long as there is no distribution of the modified version. Section 2 seems (to me) to place restrictions on modify and copy and distribute. The user in this case is only doing the first (modify), but even so: 2a) is satisfied easily, 2b) is vacuously satisfied (no distribution), and 2c) is also satisfied easily. --Joe
Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 13:24:31 +0200, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: Now - I've had a bit of a further read, and from what I've read, it's probably ok for me to build and to distribute my stuff, since I don't distribute readline as well, but apparently the debate seems to be if there is a conflict for debian to ship both readline and firebird together. I am afraid you're violating GPL this way. It doesn't matter if you distribute this lib or not. The fact is that you use lib's headers and use lib itself (while compiling and then linking the program). The keyword here is _use_. The GPL doesn't place restrictions on use, only on redistribution. I'm fairly certain that one of the texts at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ goes into this in detail. You could say so if you could compile FireBird having NO libreadline on disk (for ex. with some stub lib only and own headers). But you can't (ATM). There is only a problem if you redistribute the resulting binary. (Of course, a program that cannot be distributed in binary form is not particularly useful from Debian's perspective) Even then (if you could) - the user using such FireBird would be violating GPL, as he would effectively link GPL-incompatible program to GPLed library (he won't be able and/or will not want to use empty, stub lib). Linking GPL-incompatibly licensed code against GPLed code is not a violation of the GPL. Distributing the result is. Ray -- The problem with the global village is all the global village idiots. Paul Ginsparg
Re: Bug#155721: psi: psi is gpl links to libqssl1 whose license should be modified lgpl therefore not allowed...
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:46:05AM +0200, Jan Niehusmann wrote: On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:32:35PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote: psi uses a library, libqssl1 which is lgpl. However, since it links Psi does work perfectly well without libqssl1 installed. So I wouldn't say it's linked with libqssl1. Look at it this way: Psi, without qssl, surely is not a problem. Yes, it contains some provision to add a feature that can not be used, but well, there are loads of unimplemented features in several GPL programs. Then, we would violate GPL if we distributed a 'derivative work' of psi and a non-GPL program. But without modifying psi, how could we create a derivative work, just by adding a second package which could possibly combined with psi by the user? If psi Depends: on libqssl1, then you have quite clearly stated your intention to create a derivative work. If psi does not Depend: on libqssl1, it is mere aggregation, and not restricted by the GPL. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpTNJpeQmASS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL
[sent only to debian-legal. Comments are program-independant] Steve Langasek wrote: Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a program. But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird that uses libreadline. On further research, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL seems to imply that linking a program to a GPL library (even for personal use) means the program must be GPL. This seems like a contradiction. That is, if all you need are your private headers and stub library, that's fine -- as long as that's what FireBird uses by default when installed. If FireBird ships with a Depends: libreadlinex, then clearly we are linking against libreadline. So would pseudocode like: if ( lib = dl_load(libreadline) ) //Use libreadline code else //Use internal stub lib = dl_load(libreadline_stubs); be a way around this? Especially if the program only Suggests: libreadline? --Joe
Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL
Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: I am afraid you're violating GPL this way. It doesn't matter if you distribute this lib or not. The fact is that you use lib's headers and use lib itself (while compiling and then linking the program). Im not a lawyer, it's been intersting looking over the web on readline, with python, alladin ghostscript and others. I wonder if techincally anything compiled on linux is 'legal' :-). But best to avoid it, I've compiled in editline and it works fine, so we don't have to worry about it anymore. Thank you for your understanding No worries. Cheers Mark
Re: Software Patents Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 10:01:39PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: Ugh. And here I thought the whole point of a patent was to cover a novel method of achieving something, not to grant a monopoly on the thing to be achieved. How naïve you are. Welcome to the new capitalism. Monopolies good. Police and courts protecting your markets good. Guaranteed revenue streams good. State-protected business models good. Competition bad. Invisible hand bad. Product reviews bad. Independent scientific research bad. -- G. Branden Robinson|The best place to hide something is Debian GNU/Linux |in documentation. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Ethan Benson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpmOqEyLIl9X.pgp Description: PGP signature
Mr.Kailash
CONFIDENTIAL U.K. FAX NUMBER: 44-870-1309342 Dear Sir, Pardon me for starting this great proposal this way as it might surprise you. My name is Yuvraj Kailash a native of Nepal and attorney to the late king of Nepal who died as a result of loss in temper caused by an argument between him and his family, as they were against him marrying his fiancée .You were recommended by a close confidant. Who assured us of your capability and reliability to assist us. We seek the assistance of someone who is genuinely interested in entering into a business relationship with long term focus, and willingness of a kind heart to help. If you are conversant with events in Nepal in May/June last year 2001, (June 1 2001), the media was filled with reports that Crown Prince Dipendra of Nepal had shot and killed several members of the Nepalese Royal Family, among whom were his parents King Birenda and Queen Aiswarya, before trying to kill himself. Prior to the late kings death (Prince Dipendra), he kept aside a secret amount of money, for his fiancée (Miss Divyani Rana) worth over US$30,000,000.00(Thirty million United States Dollars). This was made in the heat of misunderstanding between him and members of his family. The money was kept away in such a way to prevent any member of his family from having any access or trace to the funds, which was just a part of his wealth, this was like a gift to his fiancée and a further affirmation to her that he was surly going to marry her, even though, his family was against their marriage. We have kept this a secret for sometime now and feel this is the right time to execute this transaction. The death of my late boss, left us stranded, we have therefore been searching for a genuine and reliable person or company of trust and with whom the Nepalese Royal Family have never had any previous, personal or business relationship with. That person will assist in the transfer and business re-investment of this money. We cannot do it alone due to our present social status. We also intend to give you a reasonable share of the funds for your assistance. These funds have been hidden away, known only to his fiancée and myself. We would want you to safeguard this fund from being clamped down by any body or agencies. As soon as we receive your letter of acceptance/acknowledgement, I shall give you more highlights on this transaction. THIS IS A RISK FREE TRANSACTION AND MUST NOT BE REVILED TO ANYONE NOT EVEN YOUR LAWYER, ATTORNEY, FAMILY, FRIENDS ETC. If you are capable and trust worthy and can keep to our instructions to make the above Proposal a reality. Then CONTACT US IMMEDIATELY ONLY THROUGH OUR CONFIDENTIAL U.K FAX NUMBER: 44-870-1309342 AS INDICATED ABOVE DO NOT REPLY US BY EMAIL. Please indicate in your reply your PERSONAL/CONFIDENTIAL TELEPHONE NUMBERS, CELLULAR OR MOBILE NUMBER, CONFIDENTIAL FAX NUMBER AND YOUR CONFIDENTIAL EMAIL ADDRESS when replying. ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY EMAIL. Your Reply Should be by Fax only to 44-870-1309342 (United kingdom) GOD BLESS YOU. Yuvraj Kailash
Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL
Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a program. But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird that uses libreadline. On further research, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL seems to imply that linking a program to a GPL library (even for personal use) means the program must be GPL. This seems like a contradiction. I've noticed that the FSF's GPL FAQ does a rather embarrassing job of distinguishing between use and distribution/modification. Section 0 of the GPL says: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). This clearly trumps anything that might be in the GPL FAQ. And section 4 says: You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Since there is no express permission to modify (and _not_ distribute), this modification would not be allowed, right? So the user can't modify his own copy for personal use, without following all of section 2's requirements? (2a-prominant notice and 2c-changed interactive message. 2b is satisfied) --Joe
Re: Is no-advertising clause GPL-compatible?
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 09:17:21AM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: My question is this: some pieces of code have an approximately BSD license but with a no-advertising clause, such as the following: * Copyright (c) 1991, Visual Edge Software Ltd. * * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission to use, copy, modify, and * distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose * and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above * copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting * documentation, and that the name of Visual Edge Software not be * used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of * the software without specific, written prior permission. The year * included in the notice is the year of the creation of the work. *---*/ Is this GPL-compatible? If not, what would you suggest I do about it? Historically, this is regarded as a GPL-compatible license. The GPL-incompatible BSD-style clause is the one that *forces* you to publicize the name of the copyright holder in advertising materials. ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change Note that the University of California has retroactively stricken this clause from all of their BSD software, rendering all of it GPL-compatible. It's my guess that the license you have quoted is regarded as GPL-compatible despite what might at first blush be regarded as an additional restriction because the thing being restricted isn't the software itself, but the name of the copyright holder. In my assessment as a non-lawyer it isn't really necessary to include clauses like this in copyright licenses because the license doesn't grant permission to freely use the name of copyright holder in the first place; just free use of the licensed work. To provide a simple example, Linus Torvalds doesn't need to put anything in the copyright license of the Linux kernel to have recourse if Red Hat Software were to put his picture on the Red Hat Linux retail box with a caption that says LINUS TORVALDS SAYS RED HAT IS PENGUIN-TASTIC!. Were they to do so, Linus would have legal recourse because his name and likeness are in no way the same entity as the Linux kernel. Red Hat and the general public have a license for the latter, but not the former. Because of this, in my opinion no-advertising clauses are dumb, and contribute to the widespread notion that you can and should bog down your copyright license with all sorts of crap that is utterly irrelevant to copyright law. However, as used by BSD-style licenses they are not a great evil, and they are widespread enough that there's not really any point trying to regard them as DFSG-non-free. The Free Software Foundation regards them as GPL-compatible, and I've never heard of any GPL-using copyright holder disagreeing with them on that point. I hope this helps! -- G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do Debian GNU/Linux |when they take over a country is to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State Senator John Monks pgpEkiKsbaYOw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:45:32AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a program. But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird that uses libreadline. On further research, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL seems to imply that linking a program to a GPL library (even for personal use) means the program must be GPL. This seems like a contradiction. I've noticed that the FSF's GPL FAQ does a rather embarrassing job of distinguishing between use and distribution/modification. Section 0 of the GPL says: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). This clearly trumps anything that might be in the GPL FAQ. And section 4 says: You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Since there is no express permission to modify (and _not_ distribute), this modification would not be allowed, right? So the user can't modify his own copy for personal use, without following all of section 2's requirements? (2a-prominant notice and 2c-changed interactive message. 2b is satisfied) So far, we aren't doing anything that requires making modifications to the GPL library; all the proposed modifications have been to the application, which is not only not GPLed, it's also GPL-incompatible. If a user were to make modifications to a local copy of the library, then yes, it would have to be done in a way that complies with the terms of the GPL. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpeCHgaCWLJg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL
Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:45:32AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a program. But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird that uses libreadline. On further research, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL seems to imply that linking a program to a GPL library (even for personal use) means the program must be GPL. This seems like a contradiction. I've noticed that the FSF's GPL FAQ does a rather embarrassing job of distinguishing between use and distribution/modification. Section 0 of the GPL says: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). This clearly trumps anything that might be in the GPL FAQ. And section 4 says: You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Since there is no express permission to modify (and _not_ distribute), this modification would not be allowed, right? So the user can't modify his own copy for personal use, without following all of section 2's requirements? (2a-prominant notice and 2c-changed interactive message. 2b is satisfied) So far, we aren't doing anything that requires making modifications to the GPL library; all the proposed modifications have been to the application, which is not only not GPLed, it's also GPL-incompatible. If a user were to make modifications to a local copy of the library, then yes, it would have to be done in a way that complies with the terms of the GPL. The specific example of FireBird was a program (GPL-incompatible license, but modifications are allowed -- http://firebird.sourceforge.net/index.php?op=docid=ipl) linked with GNU Readline (GPL). So the user, exercising his right to modify FireBird, makes the 1-line change (replace -leditline with -lreadline) to use GNU Readline. He never distributes his modified FireBird++, but is in violation of the GPL in the privacy of his $HOME? --Joe
Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 02:01:31PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: If a user were to make modifications to a local copy of the library, then yes, it would have to be done in a way that complies with the terms of the GPL. The specific example of FireBird was a program (GPL-incompatible license, but modifications are allowed -- http://firebird.sourceforge.net/index.php?op=docid=ipl) linked with GNU Readline (GPL). So the user, exercising his right to modify FireBird, makes the 1-line change (replace -leditline with -lreadline) to use GNU Readline. He never distributes his modified FireBird++, but is in violation of the GPL in the privacy of his $HOME? No, he's only *using* readline. -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you stand on your head, you will get footprints in your hair.
Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL
Nick Phillips wrote: On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 02:01:31PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: So the user, exercising his right to modify FireBird, makes the 1-line change (replace -leditline with -lreadline) to use GNU Readline. He never distributes his modified FireBird++, but is in violation of the GPL in the privacy of his $HOME? No, he's only *using* readline. Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (According to the GPL FAQ, it does) --Joe
Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL
On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 16:12, Joe Moore wrote: Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (According to the GPL FAQ, it does) Yes, but it's not _creating_ a combined work (or a modified work, or whatever), but _distributing_ it that is the issue. -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding. -- Bdale Garbee
Re: TeX Licenses teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:29:21PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote: Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:09:17 +0100 From: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Since it is almost certainly not possible to trademark a filename anyway, the solution seems fairly clear. We find a free font to replace this one with, and we drop it in place as cmr10.mf, excising the old computer modern font to the non-free archive. Suggestions for a suitable replacement are welcome. I am afraid you cannot do this: since TeX is trademarked, you cannot substitute a new font for it without violating trademark. So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -- | London, UK pgpf2g6OxLIBX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: TeX Licenses teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:40:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: I am afraid you cannot do this: since TeX is trademarked, you cannot substitute a new font for it without violating trademark. So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant. Which has been done, already, no? s/tex/tetex/. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: TeX Licenses teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:40:14 +0100 From: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 I am afraid you cannot do this: since TeX is trademarked, you cannot substitute a new font for it without violating trademark.=20 So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant. I'm afraid it is more than that. We already discussed this issue. TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installation is the same as TeX on the e-print server or on my publisher's machine. Of course, Debian is free to distribute its own freeTeX instead of Knuthian TeX under, say, GPL. I doubt it would be a wise move, however: it would be useless for most TeX users precisely because there will be no guarantee of exact compatibility. -- Good luck -Boris A sense of humor keen enough to show a man his own absurdities will keep him from the commission of all sins, or nearly all, save those that are worth committing. -- Samuel Butler
Re: TeX Licenses teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:43:37 -0400 From: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:40:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant. Which has been done, already, no? s/tex/tetex/. Glenn, to say the truth, I am appaled by the low signal/noise ratio on the group. This question was already discussed here and answered by David Carlisle. Why do I need to repeat? Ok, I am patient. The tetex-* packages distributed by Debian are NOT free TeX-like systems. Instead, they are sets of integrated typesetting tools, including: - Knuthian TeX (TM) - several TeX-like systems (pdfTeX, e-TeX, Omega) - many free fonts - many useful tools - several macro systems (plainTeX, LaTeX, AMSTeX, etc) - scripts integrating all this together Since this is a huge collection, it is NOT licensed under single license (like Debian cannot be licensed under a single license). The scripts themselves are GPL'ed. Some tools are GPL'ed too. LaTeX and many other tools are under LPPL. Some files are under Knuthian rename if you change this license. Do you need me to repeat this slowly? -- Good luck -Boris Who will take care of the world after you're gone?
Re: TeX Licenses teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installation is the same as TeX on the e-print server or on my publisher's machine. Sure! But why do you need that the TeX that John Doe uses is the same as yours? Why do you need to insist that if John Doe and Jane Froe exchange a document, and call it tex format, that they must be legally obligated to be using the same exchange mechanism as you? Thomas
Re: TeX Licenses teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 06:26:30PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote: So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant. Which has been done, already, no? s/tex/tetex/. Glenn, to say the truth, I am appaled by the low signal/noise ratio on the group. This question was already discussed here and answered by David Carlisle. Why do I need to repeat? He said the package name gets changed. The package name is tetex, not tex, so that's been done. (Package name has a very specific meaning in Debian, and there is no tex package in Debian.) The biggest change the description would need is s/TeX distribution/TeX-like distribution/. You're claiming packaging the TeX software is in violation of the TeX trademark, and you present this as if it's a showstopper for his suggestion, when it's clear that the most you would have to do is a little work with sed. Ok, I am patient. The tetex-* packages distributed by Debian are NOT free TeX-like systems. Instead, they are sets of integrated typesetting tools, including: So the package itself is not TeX, and does not need renaming. Do you need me to repeat this slowly? Okay, I'll be direct. Fix your attitude and adjust your tone. My tolerance for condescension and offensiveness has its limit. Everyone else on this list, despite differences of opinion, miscommunication and frustration, is being civil to one another, even if it takes conscious effort. Please follow suit. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: TeX Licenses teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 07:23:24PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote: Note that etex, omega and pdftex do not make this claim: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ etex This is e-TeX, Version 3.14159-2.1 (Web2C 7.3.7) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ pdftex This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159-1.00a-pretest-2004-ojmw (Web2C 7.3.7) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ omega This is Omega, Version 3.14159--1.23 (Web2C 7.3.7) Copyright (c) 1994--2000 John Plaice and Yannis Haralambous I said in my other mail that Debian *could* delete banner from tex and say something like This is deb-TeX. My argument is that this would be of very limited use for the TeX users community. While this community supported and supports new programs like etex, pdftex, omega, etc, I do not think it would support a conscious effort in deleteing the common reference point. The case here is making the TeX distribution in main use a different font by default, due to licensing issues. If the CM fonts are irrepairably non-free, this is unavoidable. However, if this is done, the packages could be set up such that installing the non-free font package would also make it revert cmr10.mf to the real CM font, so installing the renamed TeX plus the non-free package would give you the expected, unmodified behavior. (Presumably whatever font replaced cmr10.mf would have its own name as well, so people who actually want that font wouldn't be affected.) Perhaps that would be less convenient than having CM in the default package, but I don't think it would be of very limited use. I certainly don't think the act of calling the program deb-TeX makes it any less useful to anyone; that's purely cosmetic. -- Glenn Maynard
