-Original Message-
From: Frank Mittelbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 April 2003 19:22
To: Jeff Licquia
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeff Licquia writes:
Let me try to improve on Branden's version, phrased
On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 17:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:39:44AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Right, but as I just posted a little bit ago, a restriction to a problem
domain is just one type of specificity. See the GPL, section 2c, for
another, one that I think is
On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
[Branden]
Why not say something like:
If you distribute modified copies of the work, you must ensure that its
modified status is clearly, unambiguously, and obviously communicated to
users of the work.?
IMO, this is non-free without the
Scripsit Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let me try to improve on Branden's version, phrased a little differently
so it becomes a new 5.a.2:
The entire Derived Work, including the Base Format, does not identify
itself as the original, unmodified Work to the user in any way when
run.
Perhaps
Branden Robinson writes:
Mandating technologies in license documents really rubs me the wrong
way.
I'm not too happy about it either, but ...
The nice(?) thing about legal language is that you can use broad
terms to say what you mean, and as long as your meaning is clear and
Jeff Licquia writes:
Let me try to improve on Branden's version, phrased a little differently
so it becomes a new 5.a.2:
The entire Derived Work, including the Base Format, does not identify
itself as the original, unmodified Work to the user in any way when
run.
This would be
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
i don't think the wording is good, but that aside, would that lift
your
concern?
I'd prefer just saying that the documentation must make clear what the
provenance is.
The problem is still one of context.
If there is some other
Walter Landry writes:
Actually, this is a good reason for someone to use the standard
facility, not for the license to require the standard facility. All
that you really care about is that the information gets to the user,
not how it gets to them.
yes and no. we care that the
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:59:07PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
I don't think that it is prohibitively complicated. I think it is
impossible. The LaTeX people can't live with a free license. There
is too little control.
This conclusion seems hasty.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 01:55:44PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
well, I tried to give a rewrite in the other post (which can surely be
improved) --- but it is certainly something that is passed through the program
to reach the user, but this is also true for, say, GPL 2c.
Just FYI, but the
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:39:44AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Right, but as I just posted a little bit ago, a restriction to a problem
domain is just one type of specificity. See the GPL, section 2c, for
another, one that I think is appropriate.
Note that 2c is not terribly popular among some
On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 12:01:20PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The DFSG will accept a ban on making false claims of authorship to
humans, but not a ban on making such false claims to a program.
Yes; exactly my understanding of freedom to modify.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 09:11:34AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
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
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry writes:
Actually, this is a good reason for someone to use the standard
facility, not for the license to require the standard facility. All
that you really care about is that the information gets to the user,
not how it gets
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:08:37PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
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
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 this? The ability NOT to do
this when written for non-interactive use is important.
Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you can, of course, combine/run GPL packages with the base format
LaTeX-Format, there are a packages of packages licenced in this way
Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous to
linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined,
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
you can, of course, combine/run GPL packages with the base format
LaTeX-Format, there are a packages of packages licenced in this way
Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous to
linking
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous
to linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined, derived work)?
it is not at all like linking in my understanding. I take it that
you are not familar with
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd prefer just saying that the documentation must make clear what the
provenance is.
I take this as a yes, though you do not like it, correct?
Neither.
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins writes:
I'm not all that knowledgeable about latex, but I do use it and I have
read the discussions here. So correct me if I'm wrong, but my
understanding is that a package file has a very intimate level of
contact with
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry writes:
So if the LaTeX
people become evil and later decide to change the format so that you
get different behavior with non-validating files, then there has been
a retroactive change in the licensing terms. What exactly the
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
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,
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 really an attempt to
procedurally implement an underlying
sorry for joining late, but i was away without email access, as a result it is
a bit difficult to join in without possibly overlooking arguments already
presented, sorry if that is going to happen
Mark Rafn writes:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
That's basically the idea. *If*
Walter Landry writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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 confuses me.
well, the
Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 really an
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 20:49, Walter Landry wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote:
I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the
context of LaTeX, not in the context of
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 problem domain thing. Any bit of code may want to be used in
any
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 19:29, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote:
It still depends on the platform that runs it to determine whether the
modification is allowed. It may be that this is free when distributed
with a base format that does no such validation and
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 16:50, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
easy
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 20:49, Walter Landry wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote:
I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the
context of LaTeX, not in the context of all of free software. We
can't say that
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 17:59, Walter Landry wrote:
I don't think that it is prohibitively complicated. I think it is
impossible. The LaTeX people can't live with a free license. There
is too little control.
Well, I suppose there's no convincing someone who has made up their
mind.
--
Jeff
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
If the Base Format itself is free, why is this non-free?
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 19:29, Mark Rafn wrote:
Does this conflict with DFSG#9? This license effectively insists that the
Base Format must be free software in order for the Work to be free.
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:59:07PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But does that possibility make the original software non-free? Your
argument seems to be that it is possible to make a derived version
that is not free - but that possiblity exists for,
Is this really saying that I can distribute The Work, or ANY Derived Work,
under any license I choose, as long as 7a (which is really just a pointer
to 5a, which says that if you're not the current maintainer, you must make
modifications sufficiently obvious) is satisfied?
For example,
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The filename limitations are now optional; 5.a.1 is one possibility of
three. As for 5.a.2 and the programmatic identification strings, can
you elaborate? Considering that much of the wording in the license is
mine (including 5.a.2), it's entirely
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
files, but not the validation mechanism.
Could you please imagine one? Remember to include in your imagined
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
files, but not the validation mechanism.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
files, but not the validation mechanism.
Could you please imagine one?
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 11:50, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The filename limitations are now optional; 5.a.1 is one possibility of
three. As for 5.a.2 and the programmatic identification strings, can
you elaborate? Considering that much of the wording in the
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
files, but not the validation mechanism.
Could you please imagine
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that *requiring* the use of the trust facilities is bad; I'm
attempting to make it possible for LaTeX to be able to rely on the
trust facilities in Standard LaTeX while maintaining the freedom
to ignore it for non-Standard LaTeX.
On
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote:
I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the
context of LaTeX, not in the context of all of free software. We
can't say that it is ok to use this license for LaTeX, but not for
Mozilla, Apache, Samba and OpenSSH.
Why
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:32, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
files, but
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
That's basically the idea. *If* there is a validation mechanism, and
*if* the module uses the validation mechanism to assert it is Standard
LaTeX, then when you change the file, you must ensure that the
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote:
It still depends on the platform that runs it to determine whether the
modification is allowed. It may be that this is free when distributed
with a base format that does no such validation and non-free otherwise.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote:
I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the
context of LaTeX, not in the context of all of free software. We
can't say that it is ok to use this license for LaTeX, but not for
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have attached a new working draft for the LaTeX Project Public License
(LPPL) below.
At first glance, everything looks fine except for section 5.
5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify
your copy of The Work, thus creating
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run, and
the Base Format provides a facility for such files to be
validated as being original parts of The Work, then the file
Jeff Licquia said:
I have attached a new working draft for the LaTeX Project Public License
(LPPL) below.
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 confuses me.
Is this
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 02:06, Walter Landry wrote:
At first glance, everything looks fine except for section 5.
5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify
your copy of The Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on The Work,
as long as the following conditions
Strings for other programs (think browser id-strings) must be
modifiable to anything at all. Strings strictly for human consumption
can be required to indicate that it is different.
The distinction seems rather vague as machines can read messages
originally intended for humans, and vice
On Tue, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
However, I can also predict that that the LaTeX people will likely stand
their ground in places.
Thank you for doing this, Jeff. It would be great to have LPPL which
allows us to keep LaTeX in Debian. I really wish it wasn't a matter of
standing
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 confuses me.
Is this really saying that I can distribute The Work, or ANY
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 02:06, Walter Landry wrote:
2. If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run, and
the Base Format provides a facility for such files to be
validated as being original parts of The Work, then the
I have attached a new working draft for the LaTeX Project Public License
(LPPL) below.
After the debate that took place months ago, I and several members of
the LaTeX Project worked off and on towards solving the problems that
had been raised before. This version, a near-total rewrite, is the
85 matches
Mail list logo
