Something like this:
You must not cause files to misrepresent themselves as approved by
the official LaTeX maintenance group, or to misrepresent
themselves as perfectly compatible with such files (according to
compatibility criteria established by the official LaTeX
Frank Mittelbach said:
Jeff Licquia writes in reply to Joe Moore:
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 13:45, Joe Moore wrote:
10. The Work, or any Derived Work, may be distributed under a
different license, as long as that license honors the conditions
in Clause 7a, above.
This clause
Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Something like this:
You must not cause files to misrepresent themselves as approved by
the official LaTeX maintenance group, or to misrepresent
themselves as perfectly compatible with such files (according to
compatibility
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
Would it make it less of a misrepresentation if the comment produced
output to the screen that this wasn't Standard LaTeX?
AFAIU, what the authors of the LPPL draft is trying to express is
nothing more or less than
1. You must make your modified
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
AFAIU, what the authors of the LPPL draft is trying to express is
nothing more or less than
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
that it isn't Standard LaTeX.
Would it be possible to use GPL wording for
On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 01:05, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of
how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction
between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good
stuff, we could back up a step? This all
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 22:24, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain
elements that are specific to the problem domain?
I acknowledge it in principle, except it turns out that I don't buy
the
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 00:44, Walter Landry wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain
elements that are specific to the problem domain?
Of course I don't acknowledge that. One of the wonderful things about
free software
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
AFAIU, what the authors of the LPPL draft is trying to express is
nothing more or less than
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
that it isn't Standard LaTeX.
Would it
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Except that you can't make GPL code validate with the LPPL validator,
since the GPL and LPPL are not compatible. So, since there's no danger
that the code will be run through the validator and identify itself as
standard, the GPL satisfies 7a. So the
Hi folks,
I am the author maintainer of the httrack package (currently in
testing), an offline browser and mirroring utility.
Among with html, javascript/java, and css parsers, an optional,
standalone (loaded through a dlopen probe), external module allow to
provide basic flash (swf) files
I've CC'ed this to a LaTeX person - any comments from the LaTeX crowd?
just for the record, i'm in fact subscribed to -legal since last year, just as
Henning suspect, it is just that most of you go to sleep when I wake up an
vice versa, have to get the kids to bed and then rejoin
frank
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 00:44, Walter Landry wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain
elements that are specific to the problem domain?
Of course I don't acknowledge that. One
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
that it isn't Standard LaTeX.
2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be
used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages
Joe Moore writes:
And also, the any derived work language might be seen as an attempt to
restrict the licensing preferences of derivative works. For example, if
someone would prefer to license their modifications under a strong
copyleft license, clause 10 above would seem to suggest that
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Except that you can't make GPL code validate with the LPPL validator,
since the GPL and LPPL are not compatible. So, since there's no danger
that the code will be run through the validator and identify itself as
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
that it isn't Standard LaTeX.
2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be
used provides a
Barak Pearlmutter writes:
Something like this:
You must not cause files to misrepresent themselves as approved by
the official LaTeX maintenance group, or to misrepresent
themselves as perfectly compatible with such files (according to
compatibility
Frank Mittelbach writes:
for the sake of an argument, what about
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
that it isn't the original package
2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be
used provides a documented
Walter Landry writes:
snip
This example seems to indicate that your main problem with the
validator is that it seems like a programmatic restriction. If it
were made more clear that this is not the case, would this satisfy
you? How would you change it?
It would
Mark Rafn writes:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
AFAIU, what the authors of the LPPL draft is trying to express is
nothing more or less than
1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
that it isn't Standard LaTeX.
Would it be
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
Thousands of lines of this is non-Standard LateX flying by would
prevent use in many circumstances; would a single, collected This
is non-Standard Latex; see logfile for which components are
non-Standard meet the LaTeX group's requirements?
Well,
When looking at the RFP for cathedral-book at #111609, the license is
mentioned as the Open Publication License 2.0. The only specific
mention I see of that is at:
http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml
and
http://opencontent.org/openpub
http://opensource.org/licenses/ doesn't mention anything about
23 matches
Mail list logo
