On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 22:40, Boris Veytsman wrote:
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jul 2002 20:34:32 -0500
You're right, and there may be software you can't install on your AFS
drive in this instance, because you're distributing software to those
thousand computers. This
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jul 2002 22:59:26 -0500
It's crucial to your point, therefore, that there not be a distinction
between running the program from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin. I
think we've shown that this isn't the case, since a sysadmin does not
need
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 12:36:59AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
single person is envolved. However the sysadmin case is on the other side of
the fence (sorry Nick to disappoint you, just saw your post :-) as it
typically means providing a non-latex under the label of latex to
unsuspecting
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:35:42 +1200
From: Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take my company. There are 4 of us working there. I'm quite likely to want
to make a small modification to some part of LaTeX to make it behave how I
want it to. It's been a long time since I used LaTeX heavily, so
(Please CC me on answers: I'm not a member of debian-legal.)
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Concern 1: requiring a change of filename in case of modification
in case of distribution
=
this seems to me
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all, requiring a source file rename is, I think, obviously OK;
renaming foo.c to bar.c doesn't really affect your rights, and is
mostly an annoyance (tracking down Makefile references and so on).
Why is this obviously OK? DFSG #4 allows people to
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter, i think, asked if one can't remove that checking code through another
(independent) modification. The answer is yes, easily, but only by either
- forking the latex kernel, ie running on a non-latex in which this whole
discussion is
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 17:24, William F Hammond wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's imagine something like LaTeX licensed under something like the
LPPL, and let's also assume that I'm going to hack it.
So, I edit article.sty.
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry writes:
I must be thick headed. How can you say that the kernel will never
need to be modified for a new package? I accept that in most cases,
this is true, but saying that it is always true is absurd.
no its not. perhaps you
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all, requiring a source file rename is, I think, obviously OK;
renaming foo.c to bar.c doesn't really affect your rights, and is
mostly an annoyance (tracking down Makefile references and so on).
Why
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess it really comes down to users' expectations, but this is not an area
that is amenable to watertight wording. I do however think that if you manage
to answer this question clearly and without ambiguity, then you may find that
you have come up
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:43, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:35:42 +1200
From: Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take my company. There are 4 of us working there. I'm quite likely to want
to make a small modification to some part of LaTeX to make it behave how I
want
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote:
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jul 2002 22:59:26 -0500
It's crucial to your point, therefore, that there not be a distinction
between running the program from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin. I
think we've shown
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 02:42, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
what i meant, however, (and sorry for not expressing that good enough) is that
LPPL doesn't pile up names by default, ie simply through forking. That is
there is no requirement for Alice to put BAZ under LPPL just because FOO or
BAR was.
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 10:20:04PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I guess it really comes down to users' expectations, but this is not an area
It is perfectly reasonable to want to help out users' expectations.
However, an important freedom associated with free software is the
freedom
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:06, Walter Landry wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all, requiring a source file rename is, I think, obviously OK;
renaming foo.c to bar.c doesn't really affect your rights, and is
mostly an annoyance (tracking down Makefile references and so
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:06, Walter Landry wrote:
But what if latex evolved to the point where there is a cascade of
dependencies? Is Debian going to have to monitor what the LaTeX
people do, just to make sure that they don't make it too hard to
modify? What if a third party modifies LaTeX
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
First of all, requiring a source file rename is, I think, obviously OK;
renaming foo.c to bar.c doesn't really affect your rights, and is
mostly an annoyance (tracking down Makefile references and so on).
Why is this obviously OK? DFSG #4
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
When I execute a program, this is not a distribution. When I allow
others to execute it, I distribute it -- even if there is no actual
copying of bits between magnetic media.
Actually, it's not clear that this is true. For example, technically a
CD
OK, here's what I was thinking.
Let's imagine something like LaTeX licensed under something like the
LPPL, and let's also assume that I'm going to hack it.
So, I edit article.sty. OK, no problem; just rename it to
article-hacked.sty.
Oops, now things aren't working right. book.sty
But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
latex.
That is a very tired argument.
Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
been remarkably successful in its stated aims.
Prior to the latex2e licence (which from which LPPL was derived)
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:38:47AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
latex.
That is a very tired argument.
Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
been remarkably successful in its stated aims.
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Prior to the latex2e licence (which from which LPPL was derived)
latex could be (and often was) locally modified and re-distributed.
It got so bad by around 1990 that passing a latex document from one site
to another was largely a matter of luck.
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I pointed out, good practise alone would suggest that the University
didn't call their hacked version LaTeX in the latter case. But where
is the line to be drawn, if it is to be drawn at all?
I think that ultimately it is the University and its users
Perhaps latex is a miserably poor interchange format. Or perhaps
the language needed a clear standard and clear documentation. After
all, the way the world of C programmers solved this problem was by
careful standardization, not by insisting that there should be Only
One C Compiler.
It
Got a reply from elektrostore in Swedish.
Translation of the reply follows:
---
Hi Per!
We're aware of the similarity, we have however not been able to pin down where
the spinning thing comes from. We've tried to reach the person who made it,
but the advertising agency which produced it has
Could people please comment on
http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
like the advice to be correct.
Regards,
Joey
--
All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory...
-- Larry Wall
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:38:47AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
latex.
That is a very tired argument.
Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
been remarkably successful in its stated aims.
Freedom includes the right to do things that you (and even I) think
are stupid. Debian stands for freedom.
And lppl is intended to give you the right to do stupid things (yes
you can do them), but without perjudicing the right of all latex
users to have a latex working correctly and with
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Could people please comment on
http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
One alternative which is not listed, which might make sense for some
vendors, is to offer either binary or binary + source CD sets, for
the same price.
If that's the feeling and attitude of the majority of the people here then
the whole exercise
is pointless. I hope this is a singular incidence. If not please tell us so
and we might as well stop
the discussion
regards
frank
-Ursprungliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's take an example that will likely resonate with typesetters a bit
more: the euro. How did you arrange to add the euro symbol to TeX and
LaTeX? What would have happened if I would have needed a euro symbol
before it was added?
You do the same before as after
you find (or make) some
On Sunday 21 July 2002 22:59, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 22:40, Boris Veytsman wrote:
I think that a sysadmin that put
a changed copy of latex.fmt in the $TEXFORMATS directory to be used by
his users, *distributes* a changed LaTeX. You think he does not; the
problem with
Martin Schulze schrieb am 22.07.:
http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
like the advice to be correct.
Perhaps it's worth to mention 3b):
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
to give
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 12:43:53AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:35:42 +1200
From: Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take my company. There are 4 of us working there. I'm quite likely to want
to make a small modification to some part of LaTeX to make it behave how I
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Could people please comment on
http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
like the advice to be correct.
Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO.
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Jul 2002 00:23:22 -0500
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:43, Boris Veytsman wrote:
From: Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take my company. There are 4 of us working there. I'm quite likely to want
to make a small modification to some part
Jeff Licquia wrote
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote:
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jul 2002 22:59:26 -0500
It's crucial to your point, therefore, that there not be a
distinction between running the program from /usr/local/bin or
/afs/whatever/bin. I
Frank Mittelbach wrote:
well they do to some extend but not really. The simplest solution for a
distributor would be (beside informing the authors of articl.cls)
simply not to distribute article.cls but only
article-with-recurity-problem-removed.cls (no i'm not really suggesting
thisas a
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 06:05:35PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
I'm completely with you on that; what I meant was that when trying to
clearly answer the question where should the name-change requirement
kick in? that the LaTeX guys would probably be primarily considering
the expectations of
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Jul 2002 00:47:39 -0500
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Exactly. I really do not see the difference between running a program
from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin/. What is the difference
between AFS and NFS besides
As the GPL says:
(2) You can give them an offer to provide the source to anyone (not
merely your own customers) at a later date--that's you, yourself, not
some other third party--at cost alone.
How long is this offer valid? The GPL says at least three years.
A non-profit third party
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:27:04 -0700
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Prior to the latex2e licence (which from which LPPL was derived)
latex could be (and often was) locally modified and re-distributed.
It got so bad by around 1990
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:28:38 -0700
I think that ultimately it is the University and its users who are
best place to make that decision, and not the LaTeX mafia.
I think that LaTeX users community is pretty happy with the way the
things are.
Javier Bezos writes:
Freedom includes the right to do things that you (and even I) think
are stupid. Debian stands for freedom.
And lppl is intended to give you the right to do stupid things (yes
you can do them), but without perjudicing the right of all latex
users to have a
It's not expressly forbidden or expressly allowed, so we have to figure
out if it's OK or not. As I mentioned, it doesn't seem onerous as a
requirement; just an mv/cp and a few Makefile edits.
Would you not need to rename the Makefile too if you edit it?
for that hypothetical license Jeff
Javier Bezos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And lppl is intended to give you the right to do stupid things (yes
you can do them), but without perjudicing the right of all latex
users to have a latex working correctly and with documents which
can be distributed freely.
Huh? Even if it were in the
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
for that hypothetical license Jeff was talking about I wouldn't
know, but even that wouldn't be a problem as you could load your new
makefile with -f. it wouldn't be very useful as the Makefile is a
building tool, but it wouldn't be an obstacle
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One alternative which is not listed, which might make sense for some
vendors, is to offer either binary or binary + source CD sets, for
the same price. That way they don't have to worry about the 3-year
offer, and customers don't have to bother with
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As the GPL says:
(2) You can give them an offer to provide the source to anyone (not
merely your own customers) at a later date--that's you, yourself, not
some other third party--at cost alone.
How long is this offer valid? The GPL says at least
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:28:38 -0700
I think that ultimately it is the University and its users who are
best place to make that decision, and not the LaTeX mafia.
I think that LaTeX users community is
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 03:13, Javier Bezos wrote:
Let's suppose now that you may modify files without changing
filenames. I edit article.sty, but it so happens that there are
some packages (which I'm not aware of) which rely in the
exact behaviour of article.sty and I don't want to break
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could people please comment on
http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
like the advice to be correct.
I would only add one sentence to the end of part two. It says:
(2) The
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
for that hypothetical license Jeff was talking about I wouldn't
know, but even that wouldn't be a problem as you could load your new
makefile with -f. it wouldn't be very useful as the Makefile is a
building
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 07:29, David Carlisle wrote:
In the case of security it is worth saying again that this
Security is only one of many good reasons to change LaTeX, and it's
certainly a valid one, even for LaTeX. The lack of security problems in
LaTeX is possible a happy accident of
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LaTeX is distributed with a free Licence that most independent people
have taken as meeting the DFSG.
Where did you get this from? I have doubts as to whether any
independent people (i.e. not affiliated with Debian or the LaTeX
project) have really
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 01:37, Peter Palfrader wrote:
Would you not need to rename the Makefile too if you edit it?
That would depend on the license. I could foresee a license making a
distinction between Makefiles and .c files.
The point is not that a particular hypothetical license is free or
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
for that hypothetical license Jeff was talking about I wouldn't
know, but even that wouldn't be a problem as you could load your new
makefile with -f. it
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
For debian people: please consider this. I believe this voids many of the
intents of the license, as previously mentioned (sysadmins can use this
remapping feature to make \documentclass{article} load some other file
instead of 'article.cls'), but
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all, requiring a source file rename is, I think, obviously OK;
renaming foo.c to bar.c doesn't really affect your rights, and is
mostly an annoyance (tracking down Makefile references and so on).
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:06, Walter Landry
The problem is that I do not believe that the security model of TeX and
the security model of LaTeX are absolutely equivalent. They may be
close, but close doesn't cut it in the security world.
I don't think they are close. I assert they are the same as latex is just
part of the input to
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 03:38, David Carlisle wrote:
But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
latex.
That is a very tired argument.
And this is not?
Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
been remarkably successful in its
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:06, Walter Landry wrote:
But what if latex evolved to the point where there is a cascade of
dependencies? Is Debian going to have to monitor what the LaTeX
people do, just to make sure that they don't make it too hard to
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that the only people who are really authoritative are the
ftp-admins. They generally defer to the consensus of debian-legal,
though. They might listen to a direct order from the technical
committee and/or a General Resolution.
Practically,
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
This is always the easier way. Just giving source right out is always
easier than fretting about the written offer clause. And since CDs
are so bloody cheap, it's trivial. Heck, why not just always ship
both?
CDs are bloody cheap only if you produce a certain
Folks,
it seems to me that by now we are turning around in cycles rehashing arguments
that are important in general (can LaTeX have security problems, yes or no?;
how does one do software development ...) but not with respect to the problem
at hand which still is (to me at least) the following
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:31:54 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To go forward I propose
A) I would like you to come to a conclusion on (1) assuming the above Axiom
The question is, who should say yes and no? Sorry for being
ignorant about the rules -- but is there a
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:22:50PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Don't reinvent the wheel. If you want the legal assurance of a
trademark, just go and get one.
It seems that people who havn't been willing to act in good faith (eg.
people who wouldn't follow guidelines for this if they didn't
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 11:05, Boris Veytsman wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:27:04 -0700
Perhaps latex is a miserably poor interchange format. Or perhaps
the language needed a clear standard and clear documentation. After
all, the way the
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 10:22, Joe Moore wrote:
Jeff Licquia wrote
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote:
My /usr/local/bin can
be NFS-exported to hundreds of computers. Even my box can have
hundreds logins there.
Yes, but in the former case, you are distributing the
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 09:49, Boris Veytsman wrote:
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My /usr/local/bin can
be NFS-exported to hundreds of computers. Even my box can have
hundreds logins there.
Yes, but in the former case, you are distributing the program to
hundreds of
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Jul 2002 15:02:28 -0500
Would it really contradict your professed goals to have three
LaTeX-alike systems floating around, one named LaTeX, one named FooTeX,
and one named BarTeX?
Of course not. Actually there are several systems floating
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 09:20, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Is this legal? As follows from the skipped part of your letter, there
are doubts. Let me now put it this way: if it is legal, then *I think*
it is legal to use non-quite-latex without renaming in these
circumstances. If it is not, then you
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 07:06, Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
If that's the feeling and attitude of the majority of the people here then
the whole exercise
is pointless. I hope this is a singular incidence. If not please tell us so
and we might as well stop
the discussion
You might be interested in
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
it seems to me that by now we are turning around in cycles rehashing arguments
that are important in general (can LaTeX have security problems, yes or no?;
how does one do software development ...) but not with respect to the problem
at hand
David + Jeff
The problem is that I do not believe that the security model of TeX and
the security model of LaTeX are absolutely equivalent. They may be
close, but close doesn't cut it in the security world.
I don't think they are close. I assert they are the same as latex is just
Jeff,
I am afraid you do not know about the recent history of gcc.
[...]
We, as a project, understand this perhaps better than you do. We
currently ship three different C compilers for woody: 2.95 in most
cases, 2.96 for certain architectures, and 3.0 for one architecture
You might be interested in Thomas's followup:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00407.html
sure i am. but at the same time I just saw the reply by Walter
message number perhaps
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00431.html
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 14:31, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
it seems to me that by now we are turning around in cycles rehashing arguments
that are important in general (can LaTeX have security problems, yes or no?;
how does one do software development ...) but not with respect to the problem
at hand
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 15:50, Walter Landry wrote:
If file renaming is a real axiom, then I don't think that Debian and
the LaTeX Project can come to an agreement. DFSG #4 has never been
interpreted as allowing that kind of restriction, and I don't see why
Debian should make an exception for
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 13:46, Walter Landry wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We already have to vet upstream whenever they release new versions of
software. For example, the Python license changed after 1.5.2 to become
incompatible with the GPL; we skipped Python 1.6 and 2.0
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To say the truth, it is ok to have kgcc, egcs, gcc on the same
system. The problem is, you need to decide what is *the* $CC for each
program.
And if it's posix, there's c89, which is guaranteed on Posix systems
to be the ANSI C compiler.
But there
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 16:02, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
You might be interested in Thomas's followup:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00407.html
sure i am. but at the same time I just saw the reply by Walter
message number perhaps
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point is not the fork on that level it is the fork on the package
level. LaTeX users, just as pdflatex users, etc. expect their documents if
processed at one site with LaTeX (or with pdflatex, etc) to come out the same
if processed with LaTeX (or
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
I concur with the FSF's judgment, BTW--because of the existence of the
filename mapping feature, the hurdle of renaming files (while
exceedingly obnoxious) is not so high that it renders the package
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 10:34, Mark Rafn wrote:
I'm with Walter here. It's not obviously OK, though it's not obviously
unfree either. If it's ONLY renaming of foo.c AND there aren't many files
that depend on the name of foo.c, we would likely put up with it. If it's
renaming foo.c, bar.c,
Thomas Bliesener [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
This is always the easier way. Just giving source right out is always
easier than fretting about the written offer clause. And since CDs
are so bloody cheap, it's trivial. Heck, why not just always ship
both?
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:31:54PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
So to come back to (1):
Axiom: after all discussions the LaTeX Mafia, the LaTeX users that spoke on
this list, and the Debian users that mailed me privately, still believe that
the requirement for renaming files LaTeX
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, we also have this problem with other non-copyleft licenses, such
as BSD. I believe there were some non-free files in XFree86 at one
point, for example, which had to be removed from our tarball.
Debian still only has to review licenses. It does not
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 15:50, Walter Landry wrote:
If file renaming is a real axiom, then I don't think that Debian and
the LaTeX Project can come to an agreement. DFSG #4 has never been
interpreted as allowing that kind of restriction, and I don't see
At 01.31 +0200 2002-07-22, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 15:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Lars Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The discussion between Jeff and me turned up another main concern,
regarding the distribution of modified works. In his opinion (which I now
suspect
Hi,
As you maybe already know, RealNetworks (the guys behind RealPlayer
client and server) want to release their next version under an
OSI-certified licence. See http://open.helixcommunity.org
That would allow us to package the client and the server to have it
into Debian. They're building their
On Jul 22, Boris Veytsman wrote:
The question is, who should say yes and no? Sorry for being
ignorant about the rules -- but is there a mechanism of voting or
other decision taking of the list? How it is formally initiated?
The only formal procedures available are:
- Action by the Debian
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
It sounds like you might have to talk to Branden and maybe Henning as
well. I'm not sure about Mark Rafn and Glenn Maynard. Thomas
Bushnell, Sam Hartman, and Colin Watson seem to be with you. Those
seem to be all of the regular
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 18:24, Lars Hellström wrote:
At 01.31 +0200 2002-07-22, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Right. The question is what modification rights do you have? There's
good reason to believe that the must change the file name clause must
apply to derived works as well, so each time a file
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 08:27:31PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Is anybody investigating this?
I filed bug#153257 about this. I don't know if anyone is investigating it :)
Frankly, I thought tetex licensing had been discussed and resolved a long
time ago, and I'm surprised that there's still a
Hi. After some back-and-forth discussion with our attorney, I would like to
propose the following OpenSSL exception statement to be applied to the
HP-copyrighted portion of the hpoj code which needs this (libptal and the
libraries and applications that link to it, but not ptal-mlcd):
In
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:04:25PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
-
The requirement for modifications to LaTeX to be in files with different
names from the original files, when combined with the ability for LaTeX
to do filename mapping for file references, does not constitute a
violation of
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 01:32:51AM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
Hi,
As you maybe already know, RealNetworks (the guys behind RealPlayer
client and server) want to release their next version under an
OSI-certified licence. See http://open.helixcommunity.org
Clause 13.7 of the RPSL
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
I'm not sure about Mark Rafn and Glenn Maynard.
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'm not a DD.
Nor am I. I'm just a user who shoots my mouth off, and I learn more from
d-l than I contribute.
Put me down as it doesn't
100 matches
Mail list logo
