On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 10:16, Mark Rafn wrote:
If the situation allows for the renaming of only a few things--and
only user commands, really--then I don't mind *that* much. If the
situation requires the renaming of a jillion things, then I mind.
I'd go further than Thomas. I'm torn
This is especially true if you
interpret the many different modules of LaTeX as separate works (as the
LaTeX Project seems to do)
I don't see how you can do anything but consider them separate works.
If you are writing latex packages then latex is essentially a programming
language. So you
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is the situuation we are in here. LPPL has proved popular.There are
hundreds (jillions) of independently distributed packages using the
same licence. If you decide it is OK for the first of these to have a
If the situation allows for the renaming of only a few things--and
only user commands, really--then I don't mind *that* much. If the
situation requires the renaming of a jillion things, then I mind.
I'd go further than Thomas. I'm torn between No renaming, nohow noway
and If it requires
If pushed, I will concede that this is illogical, and the rule should
really be filename limitations make a package non-free
It's fine for you as an individual to think that _should_ be the case
(I happen to disagree but that's not relevant either) But Debian can't
take that position unless it
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:49:32PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
If pushed, I will concede that this is illogical, and the rule should
really be filename limitations make a package non-free
It's fine for you as an individual to think that _should_ be the case
(I happen to disagree but
Or, I accept rather that sometimes a naming restriction is compatible,
and sometimes its not.
If the situation allows for the renaming of only a few things--and
only user commands, really--then I don't mind *that* much. If the
situation requires the renaming of a jillion things, then I mind.
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is the situuation we are in here. LPPL has proved popular.There are
hundreds (jillions) of independently distributed packages using the
same licence. If you decide it is OK for the first of these to have a
renaming rule you can't change your mind
Thomas Bushnell wrote (in two messages)
I think this is true, provided it's *one* renaming that's in question,
and not a jillion.
I've already said that if all that is necessary is changing the
latex command name, then I don't object. That's in the category of
a trademark (even if the
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 12:10:11AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
I'm probably missing something obvious, but if the name LaTeX were
trademarked and could only be used by systems that are created so as
not to conflict with any package that could be obtained from CTAN, would
that not
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I must confess that i havea bit of a problem to understand the exchange
between you and Henning, but could you please be more precise about
- which freedom is taken away from all users, and
- which
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
well, all user expect that for LPPL licensed files at the moment
because that is what the license ensures. But Henning is of course,
right that I can't predict whether or not they actually believe,
that people following the license so, well, many do
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
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a vendor wants to distribute a derivateve of a GPL program without
sources, and all customers know about it, and want it, and want it
this way, then why, exactly, do you want to prtohibit them from this
freedom?
Um, they *do* have this freedom,
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If
LaTex2e 1999/12/01 patch level 1
would identify that the system you are using is ULL, then Mark has
an argument that (after some education) it should be enough to have
people check for that particular line. The counter argument is that
there
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
I'm just got back online and found 100 messages or so. I will come to the
thread Concluding the LPPL debate, try 2 at some point, but some of the
mails I read contain some misunderstanding that I think needs clearing up as
well (as they might help to come to a conclusion on the above thread) ...
TeX is not similar at all (Why do people keep bringing this up?). The
only thing you have to do is not call it TeX. You can then modify
files in place all you want.
As has been shown before the situation with TeX isn't as clear cut as
you make out, and the situation with the cm fonts is
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're missing the point. The LaTeX people certainly do know that
there are *some* places where pristine files are expected. It's not
necessary for
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
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're missing the point. The LaTeX people certainly do know that
there are *some* places where pristine
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
Jeff
I've seen that some people include the LPPL 1.2 or any later version
language into their license notice. Those people would be fine
(although I would recommend that notice be given of this particular
license change as a gesture of goodwill to the community).
No. I don't think the
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:07:06 +0100
From: David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you make a program that isn't called tex, are you saying you can edit
plain.tex and call the modified file plain.tex without being in
contravention of the comment at the top of plain.tex which says
% And
On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 15:24, David Carlisle wrote:
Jeff
I've seen that some people include the LPPL 1.2 or any later version
language into their license notice. Those people would be fine
(although I would recommend that notice be given of this particular
license change as a gesture
The fine-ness I was referring to was that, for works that add the
LPPL 1.2 or any later version language to the license, we aren't
required by law to hunt them down.
Law's the law but I just wanted to stress that this is one of (perhaps the
main) constraint that Frank and I have. Knowing that
I'm probably missing something obvious, but if the name LaTeX were
trademarked and could only be used by systems that are created so as
not to conflict with any package that could be obtained from CTAN, would
that not actually provide better protection than is currently available?
we've
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:07:06 +0100
From: David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you make a program that isn't called tex, are you saying you can
edit
plain.tex and call the modified file plain.tex without being in
contravention of the comment at the top of plain.tex which says
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I must confess that i havea bit of a problem to understand the exchange
between you and Henning, but could you please be more precise about
- which freedom is taken away from all users, and
- which freedom is given to a subset
You have
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think here is the difference between our goals.
Our community has the following model of evolution. Any change in the
language or API are allowed as long as the full backward compatibility
is preserved. By the full backward compatibility I mean the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 24 Jul 2002 22:44:16 -0700
See, we have a different model of evolution--one much much much longer
term.
Our model is one that should not rely on any assumption that
*anything* will be static, because of a desire to think *long* term.
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 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.)
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
The difference is that the printf is
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 10:27, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
The difference is that the printf is intended to identify to the human
running the program what version she has, and the registration is intended
to prevent compatible derivative works.
On 24
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}
On 25 Jul 2002 12:39:35 -0500, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 10:27, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
The difference is that the printf is intended to identify to the human
running the program what version she has, and the
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 13:08, Brian Sniffen wrote:
On 25 Jul 2002 12:39:35 -0500, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Maybe I'm just dense, but I still don't see the incompatibility. Can
anyone else see it?
Yes. Look at Microsoft's Trusted Computing plans: programs will
identify
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
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes. This seems to be a flaw in LaTeX - it doesn't interactively identify
itself when run.
Huh? The LaTeX I run identifies itself quite plainly in the third line
of the output:
pc-043:~/foo$ latex radio.tex
This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2C 7.3.1)
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.
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning,
My intention is and was to point out that while it was several times
expressed that the user is on your mind as well as the developer my
impression is that it is heavily weighted towards the latter and in
this particular case (in my
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(I understand that this is precisely why the LaTeX people are not
happy with relying on human-readable diagnostics output to prevent
hacked files from erroneourly ending up in places where pristine
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 25 Jul 2002, Henning Makholm wrote:
pc-043:~/foo$ latex radio.tex
This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2C 7.3.1)
(radio.tex
LaTeX2e 1999/12/01 patch level 1
Cool. Is it possible to simply add a requirement the identification
string when used must
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.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The LaTeX people are not able to know whether pristine files are
expected, because they don't know all the circumstances under which
their product is used.
You're missing the point. The LaTeX people certainly do know that
there are *some* places
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
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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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 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
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
Robinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Montag, 22. Juli 2002 23:27
An: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Betreff: Re: Towards a new LPPL draft
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:31:54PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
So to come back to (1):
Axiom: after all discussions the LaTeX Mafia, the LaTeX
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) Does the draft LPPL prevent me from distributing a program called
SniffenTeX which is a modified derivative work of LaTeX, but
would be run by a user as sniffentex and carries a banner
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'm not a DD. For those interested in my opinion anyway: What if I
want to modify Latex to remove the filename mapping? If the
DFSG-freeness is dependent on that mechanism, then I can't remove it
(for the best or worst of technical reasons) and have it remain
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Betreff: Re: Towards a new LPPL draft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) Does the draft LPPL prevent me from distributing a program called
SniffenTeX which is a modified derivative work
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 09:02, Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
as I said, sorry that was not deliberate. But for me work and file name
within the LATeX
context is very tightly linked. I mean, if you have the single file
overcite.sty
under LPPL then what other is the work then this file, ie how
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 23 Jul 2002 10:31:57 -0500
Would it work for you to require the following?
- if the whole is named LaTeX, every changed file must be renamed
- if the whole is named something else, files may be changed without
renaming
What about files
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:02:40 +0100, Mittelbach, Frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
follow its license meaning that you have to rename the files that
you change (i thought that was ...
as I said, sorry that was not deliberate. But for me work
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 10:40, Boris Veytsman wrote:
What about files that are individually released under LPPL? There are
hundreds of files contributed by individual authors (and I presume
being works under DFSG#4) with the rename if you change license.
I've seen that some people include the
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-
The requirement for modifications to LaTeX to be in files with different
names from the original files, when combined with the ability for LaTeX
to do filename mapping for file references, does not constitute a
violation of the Debian Free
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:19:15PM +0100, Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
Branden,
can you do me the favor and try to clearify for me when in your
opinion the DSFG 4 clause is applicable for a license.
Sure. Before getting to your hypotheticals, I'll try and give you a
direct, if generalized,
Jeff Licquia writes:
If each piece of the work had to be downloaded separately, then this
would be a valid way of thinking. When the LaTeX Project collects a
bunch of these separate works and combines them into LaTeX, though,
they create a derived work, with its own licensing
More nuances of language.
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes to
debian-legal:
that you produce sniffenlatex which has its own complete tree and in
there has identical file names to the pristine LaTeX tree so that both
trees live side by side.
For new LPPL language it might make sense
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 11:46, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Jeff Licquia writes:
If each piece of the work had to be downloaded separately, then this
would be a valid way of thinking. When the LaTeX Project collects a
bunch of these separate works and combines them into LaTeX, though,
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:46:18 +0200, Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
If you think of LPPL applying to the whole of a LaTeX sty/cls
tree of files at once, we could, i think live with the idea (it
is even described so in modguide or cfgguide as a possible though
not encouraged
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
can you do me the favor and try to clearify for me when in your opinion
the DSFG 4 clause is applicable for a license.
You asked for Branden's opinion, which I hope he'll give. I'll add mine.
DFSG 4 has 3 sentences, the first two of which are
Jeff Licquia writes:
The LaTeX Project is not collecting a bunch of seperate works and combines
them into LaTeX. It only provides 3 or 4 core parts of what is known to be
LaTeX as well as providing a license (LPPL) which helps to keep that thing
LaTeX uniform between different
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. Now I'd like to hear the Debian side. Here are the conditions for
modification that are being proposed as I understand them:
- you must rename all modified files, or
- you must rename the whole of LaTeX in your modified copy AND
distribute a
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK. Now I'd like to hear the Debian side. Here are the conditions for
modification that are being proposed as I understand them:
- you must rename all modified files, or
- you must rename the whole of LaTeX in your modified copy AND
distribute a
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK. Now I'd like to hear the Debian side. Here are the conditions for
modification that are being proposed as I understand them:
- you must rename all modified files, or
- you must rename the whole of LaTeX in
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK. Now I'd like to hear the Debian side. Here are the conditions for
modification that are being proposed as I understand them:
- you must rename all modified files, or
- you must rename the whole of
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
It sounds like you might have to talk to Branden and maybe Henning as
well. I'm not sure about Mark Rafn and Glenn Maynard. Thomas
Bushnell, Sam Hartman, and Colin Watson seem to be with you. Those
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 08:06:29AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
What's wrong with the conditional statement (unproven assertion:)
The LPPL-1.3 is DFSG-free, but only when applied to software which makes
the file-renaming requirement easy
Well, one of the properties of free software is that you
Richard Braakman writes:
Hmm, I thought of a perhaps more practical example that also illustrates
my desire for transitive closure. What if you take a piece of code from
an LPPL'ed work and use it in another project? This other project might
lack any facility for remappping filenames.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 01:47:46PM -0400, Brian Sniffen wrote:
Requiring that the tarball for SniffenTeX be no smaller than the
tarball for LaTeX, since if I distribute a fork I must distribute a
pristine LaTeX *with* it, would be unacceptable. If I'm an
English-language bigot who wishes to
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:50:07 +0200, Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK. Now I'd like to hear the Debian side. Here are the conditions for
modification that are being proposed as I understand them:
- you must
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 12:58:01PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
- you must rename the whole of LaTeX in your modified copy AND
distribute a pristine copy of LaTeX as well.
This is specifically allowed by DFSG #4. The Q Public License uses
Branden is asserting that DFSG's patch exception
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 13:20, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Jeff Licquia writes:
The LaTeX Project is not collecting a bunch of seperate works and
combines
them into LaTeX. It only provides 3 or 4 core parts of what is known to
be
LaTeX as well as providing a license (LPPL) which helps
Jeff Licquia writes:
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 13:20, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Jeff Licquia writes:
The LaTeX Project is not collecting a bunch of seperate works and
combines
them into LaTeX. It only provides 3 or 4 core parts of what is known
to be
LaTeX as well as
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 12:32, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Comments? Branden, Walter, Mark, and Jeremy, I'm especially interested
in your opinions, since you three are the current objectors.
Hmm. Time to sign up for those remedial math classes, I think... :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 11:53:26PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Sure. Before getting to your hypotheticals, I'll try and give you a
direct, if generalized, answer.
A license must be tested against DFSG 4 when either of the following are
true:
A) the license places
On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Correct. I want to distinguish here between the rights Debian needs to
have and the rights Debian intends to exercise.
This may be a useful distinction, in that it reminds license authors to
keep I hope and I want out of the license and stick to You must
sorry pressed C-c C-c in the wrong window ... try again
Jeff Licquia writes:
sorry, but we are not concerned only with the core stuff. even though we
don't
distribute the rest. The whole set of files put on ctan and identical (on a
pristine LaTeX installation) is what makes LaTeX
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
