Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- anybody is free and invited to do whatever she likes with the code
if there is no distribution
That doesn't count as freedom, ok? If it doesn't include the
freedom to share, it might as well not exist as far as we are
concerned.
- anybody is
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People should be able to modify LaTeX on their own systems, and indeed
they shall be allowed to (when the kinks are worked out of the LPPL).
The DFSG does allow that the copyright holder may require distributors
of modified versions to rename the work,
Scripsit Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you create non-LaTeX, you can move files outside the tree, and
then you are completely free to do whatever you want.
Please substantiate this claim with quotes from the license.
--
Henning Makholm Vend dig ikke om! Det er et meget
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 26 Jul 2002 13:15:44 +0200
Scripsit Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you create non-LaTeX, you can move files outside the tree, and
then you are completely free to do whatever you want.
Please substantiate this claim with quotes from
Jeff Licquia writes:
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 10:34, Brian Sniffen wrote:
[...]
Those who care primarily about the freeness of software, or who wish
to take a macro language apart and put it together again, would use
FreeLaTeX. Debian could distribute FreeLaTeX in its main
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
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}
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
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.
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.
13 matches
Mail list logo
