Glenn Maynard writes: > I don't see how any of this is related to the topic at hand, so I've > marked this OT.
if OT means others topic then I agree. > On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 02:15:31AM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote: > > There you are -- you _do_ consider you have been granted > > the True Meaning of "freeness". > > No, of course he doesn't. We're all well-aware that there are other > definitions of freeness; please stop telling us we're not. agreed. I think we all have made that point clear. There are various forms of FREE and most (perhaps all?) people think that LaTex is "free" software of some kind, but the question at hand is whether or not LPPL is within DFSG or could be made to agree to DFSG (assuming it doesn't) without violating what we consider to belong to FREE in the LaTeX sense. There is certainly an advantage to everybody in the free software community, eg Debian, FSF, OSI, LaTeX-users, ..., if software like LaTeX is accepted within each community to be free and not just in some because LaTeX plays a not unimportant part in communication and exchange between users using FREE software (of whatever flavour) So i'm for my part see indeed a value for LaTeX users (not for me personally) to try a) to improve LPPL (which has several deficiencies) b) to come to a common understanding that LPPL-x is complient with DFSG as well as FSF etc I still think that both are possible, in fact given Mark Rafn's posts there shouldn't be any problem whatsoever. but i think we should be able to do better than declare LPPL DFSG complient by tricking it. I still have the hope that I might be able to even convince Mark (even though he, if I understand his post correctly, has no respect left for the likes of me, David or others responsible for something like LPPL) that LPPL stays firmly within the freedoms outlined by Branden forming the basis of DFSG. we'll see frank -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
