Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- to get support from the kernel for a new package you have to fork the
kernel
- when modifying all future names pile up as being unchangeable
all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by now)
I must be thick headed. How can you
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 07:27:49PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
I afraid this is not -- so at least for some jurisdictions. I am not a
lawyer, but it happened that I have been closely watching a lawsuit in
Russia, where the plaintiff alleged that title is an important part of
a copyrighted
On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 11:31:19AM -0400, William F Hammond wrote:
Perhaps it just comes down to nuances of language.
I don't think so. That is, I don't think there is any nuance
involved.
LaTeX is a _project_.
For the purposes of Debian's licensing discussion, LaTeX is a
copyrighted work.
Walter Landry writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- to get support from the kernel for a new package you have to fork the
kernel
- when modifying all future names pile up as being unchangeable
all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by now)
I
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
From tripman.tex:
If somebody claims to have a correct implementation of \TeX, I will not
believe it until I see that \.{TRIP.TEX} is translated properly.
I propose, in fact, that a program must meet two criteria before it
can justifiably be called
Branden Bill
P.S. Just because present LPPL might not conform to DFSG does not
mean that LaTeX is not free.
true Bill, but irrelevent in this discussion as Branden correctly points out
below
The LaTeX Project is at liberty to represent the LPPL as a free
license to whoever it
Steve Langasek writes:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:29:36AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Indeed, I can do two things:
Make a derivate work of latex, which is variant, and called
special-non-latex.
Make a package with no derivatives
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm writes:
I'm sure it will be possible to find a way to *allow* a reasonably
painless fork without actually encouraging it.
but we do encourage fork!
I think we have a language program, then. As far as I understand, the
whole
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 11:01, William F Hammond wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED], who seems to be the Debian spokesman,
Uh, oh. Does this mean I get blamed for stuff now? :-)
writes in debian-legal@lists.debian.org at 19 Jul 2002 16:09:59 -0500,
Hello developers,
Could you give me your advice on this patend
problem ? I have not the connection time to
investigate this issue properly and anyway this
must be discussed here.
Please CC me, thanks!
- Forwarded message from Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Envelope-to: [EMAIL
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
by producing special-non-latex you are required to change its identifaction
strings which means that this program will identify itself to the user as
not-latex no matter what it is called as a debian package. Of course by
packaging it with a
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- reads in files (and ignores their content)
- writes out two or three files by dumping the results expected by TRIP.TEX
then i only have to feel happy about it to be able to call it TeX. :-) in
other words you can always trip wordings (as
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i think so yes, for example, Don's home page
other may be able to refer you to more explicit quotes.
Knuth's home page is large. Do you have a specific reference?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm writes:
Imagine that I want to create a typesetting system that behaves just
like LaTeX on all input files, except that input files that say
something like
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
will actually be typeset with
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i think so yes, for example, Don's home page
other may be able to refer you to more explicit quotes.
Knuth's home page is large. Do you have a specific reference?
sorry, seems i have thrown you a red herring
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 08:32:27PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello developers,
Could you give me your advice on this patend
problem ? I have not the connection time to
investigate this issue properly and anyway this
must be discussed here.
Please CC me, thanks!
If true, this really
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 20 Jul 2002 20:15:30 +0200
- to fork you have to rename every package under LPPL
all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by now)
It has been *asserted* over and over again that this is wrong, but
that assertation does not
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 02:37:46PM -0700, David Starner wrote:
So there's allegedly a patent on JPEG. I think someone came up with a
patent on run-length encoding at one point. Legally, moving it to
non-free is a lousy cop-out, which I don't think changes our liability
one bit. IMO, for the
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 20 Jul 2002 23:32:48 +0200
I still think it can be viewed as excessive. Let me explain.
Imagine that I want to create a typesetting system that behaves just
like LaTeX on all input files, except that input files that say
something like
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
probably none (definitely not for the 72 individual font names. Nevertheless
Debian wouldn't get a good press if it would generate modified versions of
such programs and fonts and distributed them under the original names.
Please avoid the fallacy
Thanks Boris and Frank for explanations of how some forks could be made.
It's a delightful edge case for us, and gives Debian a chance to reflect
on where the lines are and just how much liberty is required in order to
be free enough.
My current personal opinion is that the individual
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Note that in the above, `distribution' of a file means making the file
available to others by any means. This includes, for instance,
installing the file on any machine in such a way that the file is
I'm trying a summary here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Distributing GPL'ed software in object code or executable form, either
as CD image through the Internet or as pressed or burned CD, requires
the distributor (commercial or non-commercial doesn't seem to matter)
to advise the person, who
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
probably none (definitely not for the 72 individual font names.
Nevertheless
Debian wouldn't get a good press if it would generate modified versions of
such programs and fonts and distributed them under the
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Distributing GPL'ed software in object code or executable form, either
as CD image through the Internet or as pressed or burned CD, requires
the distributor (commercial or non-commercial doesn't seem to matter)
to advise the person, who receives the
Note that in the above, `distribution' of a file means making the file
available to others by any means. This includes, for instance,
installing the file on any machine in such a way that the file is
accessible by users other than yourself.
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Did this
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm writes:
I'm sure it will be possible to find a way to *allow* a reasonably
painless fork without actually encouraging it.
but we do encourage fork!
I think we have a language program,
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Therefore, a Debian archive outside jurisdictions where this patent is
enforceable is the proper home for the software if the patent is
enforceable against libjpeg62, not non-free.
Japanese and European counterparts exist, see:
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've had the impression that the remaining life of the patent is really
quite short, too, and that they're going after people with money while
they can.
The European counterpart might live much longer. It was granted in
1994. Even if the counter starts
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Suppose I take a GPL'ed program, change it and put the closed version
(sans sources) on my own machine. I did not violate GPL yet. Now
suppose that I make the drive NFS-exportable and encourage my paying
Hi,
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 22:30, Mark Rafn wrote:
Note that in the above, `distribution' of a file means making the file
available to others by any means. This includes, for instance,
installing the file on any machine in such a way that the file is
accessible by users other than
Henning Makholm writes:
[example of the complex way removed]
I thought I argued in quite a level of detail why it is the *only* way
that is allowed by the renaming rule. If you think my arguments are
wrong, could you please explain why in more detail than just
dismissing them as the
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 18:41, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:15:42AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
i have heard that statement before, but to me it doesn't follow from DSFG 4
and others (regulars on this list I presume) have in my understanding also
expressed that. Not
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 05:49:34PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
This is the root of our disagreement. I think that a sysadmin that put
a changed copy of latex.fmt in the $TEXFORMATS directory to be used by
his users, *distributes* a changed LaTeX. You think he does not; the
problem with your
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 05:11:07PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this
now.
Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license?
(You can change ls all you want as long as you rename the binary)
Richard Braakman
--
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't follow the allusion to cascading change requirements.
Could someone pose a simple example? Or was the cascade a nightmare?
OK, here's what I was thinking.
Let's imagine something like LaTeX licensed under something like the
LPPL, and
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:25:42AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this
now.
Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license?
(You can change ls all you want as long as you rename the binary)
It seems to
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 17:25, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 05:11:07PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Requiring a binary file rename is also OK; I think we might even do this
now.
Is it? Would you consider fileutils free under such a license?
(You can change ls all you want
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 04:20, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
btw, would it be acceptable to you if LPPL would say,
in case of modification you either
- do what LPPL asks for now (i.e. rename ...), or
- you keep the LaTeX package file name but replace
\ProvidesPackage{varioref}
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 08:32:27PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
Could you give me your advice on this patend
problem ? I have not the connection time to
investigate this issue properly and anyway this
must be discussed here.
The JPEG group's opinion might be of interest here.
It's at:
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 15:30, Mark Rafn wrote:
Thanks Boris and Frank for explanations of how some forks could be made.
It's a delightful edge case for us, and gives Debian a chance to reflect
on where the lines are and just how much liberty is required in order to
be free enough.
My
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:49, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Suppose I take a GPL'ed program, change it and put the closed version
(sans sources) on my own machine. I did not violate GPL yet. Now
suppose that I
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:56, Mark Wielaard wrote:
It is informative to see what the FSF says about the LPPL
(from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html):
[very interesting analysis snipped]
Note: These comments are based on version 1.2 (3 Sep 1999) of the
LPPL.
Note that we
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 15:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Lars Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The discussion between Jeff and me turned up another main concern,
regarding the distribution of modified works. In his opinion (which I now
suspect holds for at least those jurisdictions where
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jul 2002 18:07:50 -0500
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:49, Boris Veytsman wrote:
This is the root of our disagreement. I think that a sysadmin that put
a changed copy of latex.fmt in the $TEXFORMATS directory to be used by
his users,
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 17:24, William F Hammond wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's imagine something like LaTeX licensed under something like the
LPPL, and let's also assume that I'm going to hack it.
So, I edit article.sty. OK, no problem; just rename it to
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 20:18, Boris Veytsman wrote:
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jul 2002 18:07:50 -0500
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:49, Boris Veytsman wrote:
This is the root of our disagreement. I think that a sysadmin that put
a changed copy of latex.fmt in the
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jul 2002 20:34:32 -0500
You're right, and there may be software you can't install on your AFS
drive in this instance, because you're distributing software to those
thousand computers. This is irrespective of whether any of those
thousand
48 matches
Mail list logo
