Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think here is the difference between our goals.
Our community has the following model of evolution. Any change in the
language or API are allowed as long as the full backward compatibility
is preserved. By the full backward compatibility I mean the
On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 18:17, Walter Landry wrote:
Robin Fairbairns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a klingon support package might very well patch some latex internals;
it will presumably provide some fonts, and so on. this is all allowed
This is where we differ. I want to change the standard
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 17:32, Henning Makholm wrote:
However, when I modify the name of size12.clo I need to make sure that
article.cls can find my modified file. For example, article.cls
contains something like
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
so I need to modify that logic;
I have checked into CVS the license changes which explicitly allow
linking with OpenSSL. If anybody would like to inspect these changes,
here are some sample files:
http://hpoj.sourceforge.net/hpoj-cvs/LICENSE
http://hpoj.sourceforge.net/hpoj-cvs/LICENSE.OpenSSL
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 03:06:47AM -0700, David Paschal wrote:
Let me know ASAP if there are any problems I need to fix before
releasing hpoj-0.90. If nothing comes up then I plan to start the
release process approximately 12-24 hours from now.
Thanks for everybody's patience and
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 09:12:03PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
My question is: do you think this license exception is
acceptable for use? That is, does it prevent the proprietary hijacking
of the linked GPL-incompatible library? Can you see any flaws in this?
I see one
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 24 Jul 2002 22:44:16 -0700
See, we have a different model of evolution--one much much much longer
term.
Our model is one that should not rely on any assumption that
*anything* will be static, because of a desire to think *long* term.
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 modification (OpenLaTeX)
similar to the LPPL3, but which
From: Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:34:50 -0400
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
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
At 04.17 +0200 2002-07-23, Jeff Licquia wrote:
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
Richard Stallman wrote:
I see one possible flaw: if someone includes a different COPYING.OpenSSL
file, this notice would give permission for linking with something
under that replaced file. I think that's a bug. It needs to state
the OpenSSL license in some more reliable way.
Hi, Richard.
On 24 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
What is the difference between that and the following?
register_std(LaTeX);
(Which, as I understand it, is a C equivalent to the \NeedsTeXFormat
thing.)
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
The difference is that the printf is
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 10:27, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
The difference is that the printf is intended to identify to the human
running the program what version she has, and the registration is intended
to prevent compatible derivative works.
On 24
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:48:37 -0400, Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
From: Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:34:50 -0400
I'd like to suggest a licensing variant for LaTeX which uses a
weakened form of the API restrictions discussed earlier. In its
Plus, I've yet to hear a good argument for why the \NeedsTeXFormat thing
isn't DFSG-free.
I think it's a matter of which direction it's coming from. There are
several variants which are free, and several which aren't. For
example:
1. You can't distribute code using \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX}
On 25 Jul 2002 12:39:35 -0500, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 10:27, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
The difference is that the printf is intended to identify to the human
running the program what version she has, and the
I wrote:
1. Add a statement to the top of the file LICENSE.OpenSSL saying that
since it was effectively an extension to the license statements in the
individual source files in the hpoj package, only the copyright holder(s)
of those source files (namely HP) may update the LICENSE.OpenSSL file.
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
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 17:32, Henning Makholm wrote:
However, when I modify the name of size12.clo I need to make sure that
article.cls can find my modified file. For example, article.cls
contains something like
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
From: Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:39:49 -0400
1. Your proposition should include not only LaTeX but also TeX since
its licensing terms are essentially the same.
The terms of the copy of TeX on my computer appear to be rather
different: it's public
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes. This seems to be a flaw in LaTeX - it doesn't interactively identify
itself when run.
Huh? The LaTeX I run identifies itself quite plainly in the third line
of the output:
pc-043:~/foo$ latex radio.tex
This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2C 7.3.1)
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.
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.
- The Program does not represent itself as Standard LaTeX
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What if this md5sum were computed using TeX? Assuming reasonable
performance, would that be a solution?
Not really, I think - for where would the checksums to compare with
come from? They couldn't all be
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 16:58, Walter Landry wrote:
However, I'm not going to force this down the LaTeX community's
throat. If they don't want to do it, they don't have to. I just
think that it accomplishes their goals better than anything else,
while
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning,
My intention is and was to point out that while it was several times
expressed that the user is on your mind as well as the developer my
impression is that it is heavily weighted towards the latter and in
this particular case (in my
At Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:50:49 -0700 (PDT), Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me tell you how the things are organized in the TeX world. There
are dozens of TeX implementations. Some are free, some are commercial,
some are open, some are closed. I
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 01:14:12AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could we also pseudo-uniquely identify COPYING.OpenSSL with an
MD5 checksum? That is:
I think in the upstream sources, the file is called LICENSE, and it
changes once a year (because
Lars Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:50:49 -0700 (PDT), Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me tell you how the things are organized in the TeX world. There
are dozens of TeX implementations. Some are free, some are
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What if this md5sum were computed using TeX? Assuming reasonable
performance, would that be a solution?
Not really, I think - for where would the checksums to
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(I understand that this is precisely why the LaTeX people are not
happy with relying on human-readable diagnostics output to prevent
hacked files from erroneourly ending up in places where pristine
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 25 Jul 2002, Henning Makholm wrote:
pc-043:~/foo$ latex radio.tex
This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2C 7.3.1)
(radio.tex
LaTeX2e 1999/12/01 patch level 1
Cool. Is it possible to simply add a requirement the identification
string when used must
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Jul 2002 23:36:22 +0200
I can't imagine that it would be acceptable for the LaTeX people that
a change in the LaTeX *kernel* would make it legal to hack in another
file that, from their point of wiev, is part of an entirely
different,
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What if this md5sum were computed using TeX? Assuming reasonable
performance, would that be a solution?
Not
From: Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:52:16 -0400
2. You can do whatever you want with TeX code as long as it is not
called TeX.
Yes. But it requires renaming the *work*, not each individual file.
Some of the files, of course, carry more stringent terms.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The LaTeX people are not able to know whether pristine files are
expected, because they don't know all the circumstances under which
their product is used.
You're missing the point. The LaTeX people certainly do know that
there are *some* places
37 matches
Mail list logo
