It hasn't substantially changed since Aladdin's PS reader was put into
non-free (gs-aladdin).
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
Hi,
I'm ITP'ing PDFlib which has an Aladdin Free Public License. The
full text is available from
M. Drew Streib [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Debian needs to think about a couple of things:
(1) If there were a trademark on a filename, would you agree to use
another name?
(2) Would this make the copyright non-free? You would have the separation
you're looking for, but still
On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
The question here is how to guarantee that a changed overcite.sty
(without renaming) will not be used with pristine LaTeX, right?
This is insanity. If this is the goal, just choose a nice simple
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 02:24:13AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
remember LPPL is not the license for the LaTeX kernel it is a
license being applied these days to several hundreds of indepeneded
works (individually!).
Oops. Is the kernel under a different
Hi Richard!
I have a question to ask of you, which involves exception
statements to the GNU General Public License. It is slightly
complicated, so I will give you some background.
Hewlett-Packard released a driver called the HP OfficeJet Linux
Driver which is packaged in the
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 22:31, Mark Rafn wrote:
On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
LPPL in case of modification without renaming could, for example,
require to change an argument of \NeedsTeXFormat macro, i.e. to
replace
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 05:48:56AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
that such obvious attempts at avoiding license restrictions wouldn't get
you all that far with a judge either. We're not willing to let people use
dynamic linking as a way of avoiding the GPL's tentacles, in a pretty
similar
Understanding your goal a bit , I think I can state that it is not
possible to release software that is both free and prevents users from
being given a modified copy.
I agree with that as you write it, but I don't believe that saying you
must call the modified copy something else is the same
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 03:41:29AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
Hmm... it does, by naming the GPL as an example license. The GPL has
three conditions on modification. Clause 2(a) does add inconvenience:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that
Hi, Andreas. Thanks for your quick response, and I apologize again for
phoning you at work. :-) Thanks for your comments about the progress
of the project, and I'm sure you'll find the next version (0.90) to be
even better, especially in the area of scanning support. Thanks also
to Roger,
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:09:38PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
It's not so hard to imagine a similar situation outside of TeX-world.
To quote a recently seen example:
nautilus - libgnomevfs0
If you rebuild libgnomevfs0 and link it to OpenSSL, then you change
the
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yikes. I'd accept the former as free before the latter, personally.
Giving users options is one thing, but option two seems to suggest
that if Latex is forked for some reason we'll need to ferry around the
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:38:15AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
It's due to adding an SSL_initialize() feature to libgnomevfs.
No, more than that: You are adding a body of code called OpenSSL
which comes with its own license restrictions. You are still free
to write a replacement for it, and use
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
let me first qualify the suggestion that Jeff made above
- the reason for it is to give the user the possibility to exchanges
documents with other using pristine LaTeX and obtain identical output
- it therefore quite pointless to carry around
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
The question here is how to guarantee that a changed overcite.sty
(without renaming) will not be used with pristine LaTeX, right?
This is insanity.
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 19:35, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
David Turner writes:
I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 10:22, Mark Rafn wrote:
On 24 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
How is it an API change to register the name of the work you belong to?
Perhaps I misunderstood, but it sounded like it would be required for a
modified work to identify itself as modified, so that documents
Mark and others,
We already allow for the concept that programs may not be allowed to
lie about their origin in that they may be required to have a
different name.
A different name to humans. A different package name, sure. In some
cases, a different executable name (This would
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 10:22, Mark Rafn wrote:
On 24 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
How is it an API change to register the name of the work you belong to?
Perhaps I misunderstood, but it sounded like it would be required for a
modified work to
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 14:56, Walter Landry wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 10:22, Mark Rafn wrote:
On 24 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
How is it an API change to register the name of the work you belong to?
Perhaps I misunderstood, but it sounded
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 14:56, Walter Landry wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 10:22, Mark Rafn wrote:
On 24 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
How is it an API change to register the name of the work you belong
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So let me get this straight. Pristine LaTeX would have, within it, a
mechanism for checking whether a particular file is blessed by the
LaTeX project. Ideally, it could check digital signatures. md5sums
Jeff Licquia writes:
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 14:56, Walter Landry wrote:
So let me get this straight. Pristine LaTeX would have, within it, a
mechanism for checking whether a particular file is blessed by the
LaTeX project. Ideally, it could check digital signatures. md5sums
might
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:53:23 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So it is NOT me or David or anybody else from The LaTeX Team that controls an
this: the terms of LPPL control it as any work under LPPL will be on a LaTeX
system (but not on a fork on) load the sameset of macros
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If it would be done via something like \NeedsTeXFormat{latex2e} then LPPL
would need to state
that in case of modification and distribution
- you either rename your work with respect to its loading name for
LaTeX (ie if you want to keep
David Turner writes:
OK, how about the following:
As a special exception to the section titled CONDITIONS ON DISTRIBUTION
AND MODIFICATION (Section 57), you may modify the Program by
processing them with automated translation and compilation tools
(Tools) to generate derivative works
Boris Veytsman writes:
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:53:23 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So it is NOT me or David or anybody else from The LaTeX Team that controls
an
this: the terms of LPPL control it as any work under LPPL will be on a
LaTeX
system (but
Henning Makholm writes:
Would you consider the second of these options acceptable?
who is the you in your question?
frank
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Our point is that that a user of LaTeX is (normally) in either of
two situations:
- she starts LaTeX on a installed unix or windows system where the
installation of the system was not installed by her or was
installed by her but using the
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
The question here is how to guarantee that a changed overcite.sty
(without renaming) will not be used with pristine LaTeX, right?
Mark Rafn wrote:
This is insanity. If this is the goal, just choose a nice simple license
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm writes:
Would you consider the second of these options acceptable?
who is the you in your question?
Good question. The you I had in mind was Frank Mittelbach (or
whoever has the power to decide what's in the next version of the
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hate to disappoint you, but this is much more work than you think.
LaTeX is not a Linux project. It is not even a Unix or Posix
project. It is a thing which works on virtually all platforms
including Unices, Windows, Mac, OS/2, VM/CVS, VMS, DOS and
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 preserving the freedom to modify.
What
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't tell me that 631 lines of C code is too much.
It is, when there is no infrastructure to run C code at all.
Gee, isn't it nice that we can modify the TeX engine?
One cannot, when the boundary conditions are that one wants to produce
a program
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 10:22, Mark Rafn wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstood, but it sounded like it would be required for a
modified work to identify itself as modified, so that documents can
determine if they're running on real latex. This disallows preserving
the API exactly while changing
Henning,
In other words, I challenge you that in this case you don't live up to your
social contract in particular to #4 of it. I.e. you are not guided be the
needs of your user _and_ the free-software community but guided only by one
singular interpretation of what is free-software
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm writes:
Would you consider the second of these options acceptable?
who is the you in your question?
Good question. The you I had in mind was Frank Mittelbach (or
whoever has the power to
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Perhaps because LaTeX people want to give other people (basically
themselves) a couple of other rights, namely:
1. The right to use fragments, ideas or algorithms
M. Drew Streib [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whether or not a trademark on a filename is enforceable is arguable,
although in my non-professional opinion, if a user reasonably expected
that a particular command line would call a particular program, and
another program were substituted instead, it
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hate to disappoint you, but this is much more work than you think.
LaTeX is not a Linux project. It is not even a Unix or Posix
project. It is a thing which
A different name to humans. A different package name, sure. In some
cases, a different executable name (This would be problematic if it
were broad enough). A different name in it's API? I don't think that
follows.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
who is the human
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote:
1. The right to use fragments, ideas or algorithms of their code in
any way whatsoever without any limitations
Cool. This right is incompatible with your interoperability guarantee,
and with some other license terms for at least some
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 11:20:00PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- or that you change to \NeedsTeXFormat{sniffenlatex} if your work is
intended for a nonLaTeX fork in which case you could keep the name.
I'm not sure that it would make any
On 24 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
printf(This is Standard LaTeX\n);
is not allowed, and the restriction is allowed by the DFSG.
Maybe. If it's part of an API (like an HTTP header), or it's a common
practice for programs to switch on this string, I'd probably argue that
this restriction
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it's true of C as well. We wouldn't accept a Perl, for instance, that
forbade incompatible changes to the API, even if it allowed addition of
keywords. It really is the case that we want to preserve the
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 possible flaw: if someone includes a different COPYING.OpenSSL
file,
LOJADOTELEMOVEL.COM 25 de Julho 2002
http://www.lojadotelemovel.com
TELEMÓVEIS
Telemóveis em lançamento na Lojadotelemovel.com:
Siemens M50 http://www.lojadotelemovel.com/product_info.php3?products_id=3792
Philips Fisio 820
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
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.)
The difference is that the printf is intended to
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it's true of C as well. We wouldn't accept a Perl, for instance, that
forbade incompatible changes to the API, even if it allowed addition of
keywords. It really is the case that we want to preserve the
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 20:30, Richard Braakman wrote:
I have serious doubts about the freeness of this option, and they are
motivated by what seems to be a closely analogous situation to me:
web browser identification strings.
Imagine that Microsoft, after being visited by aliens, decides to
50 matches
Mail list logo
