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 providing a license (LPPL) which helps to keep that > > thing > > > > "LaTeX" uniform between different installations. > > > > > > I see. I was under the impression that what you distribute included > > > lots of third-party stuff. > > > > > > Debian is really only concerned here with the core license on the core > > > parts of LaTeX. If others within the LaTeX community don't like what > > > you've done with the license, then they can add modification > > > restrictions, and Debian can then decide to distribute them or not, or > > > negotiate directly with them, or whatever. > > > > 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 useful, not their > > quality as > > such. So either we find a solution which keeps this intact (and we > > had found something with LPPL, though we are happy to reword it, to iron > > out > > mistakes in it that do not fit the intended meaning). > > Well, I am confused, then. > > When I talk about "LaTeX", I am talking about something with a specific > scope. If, for example, the LPPL required that every file in /usr/bin > be renamed whenever something changes within LaTeX, that would be quite > blatantly non-free because of an overwide scope and high burden placed > on the user. > > There is, I imagine, stuff that is not a part of LaTeX, but that works > with LaTeX. That stuff may or may not be licensed under a particular > license. That's immaterial to the question of whether LaTeX is free or > not. > > If you're asking Debian to always ship absolutely everything in CTAN as > a precondition to gaining modification rights to LaTeX, then that's > something that Debian can't offer. We don't know how that software is > licensed, and can't guarantee that it will be free or not. > > > but there is no point in providing a largely useless core (identical) and > > having all the rest happily return to the state of 1990 where no two site > > had > > identical LaTeX packages and thus document exchange turned out to be > > largely a > > matter of luck or sending whole latex package trees along with the > > document. > > > > > But before we can deal with the add-ons, we need to deal with the core. > > > > no. sorry. if that is what only we are trying to do then I guess we have to > > give up. > > Then you should take over the copyright from the other contributors, or > mandate that they accept the LPPL as you deliver it, or get everyone to > accept the LPPL voluntarily, or something. > > You can't have it both ways. If you treat add-ons outside your control > as "core" to LaTeX and allow them to be licensed arbitrarily, then you > must accept the fact that people like us will be forced by the licenses > to drop portions of it. Otherwise, as has been pointed out before, the > LPPL could be a free license but LaTeX be non-free, because one file > within it has an unacceptable modification restriction. > > Put another way: If you refuse to allow us to drop a non-free file, then > the whole of LaTeX gains a new license: the LPPL plus the conditions of > the single non-free file. If you don't give us a way around that, then > your hard work getting the LPPL compliant can be invalidated by a single > person within the LaTeX community who gets a flight of fancy that > freedom isn't all that important. > > > > Please clarify something for me. What are the .fst files? Are they > > > patches? > > > > if the nonLaTeX format supports the global remapping features > > > > for .sty files .fst files will be used if they exist > > for .cls files .fcl files will be used if they exist > > and so on > > > > then the only thing that one has to do to fix any file under LPPL is to > > produce a modified version and name it .fst instead of do .sty and then > > nonLaTeX will use it. No need to copy huge trees of identical software > > > > that was only rehashing why we think the suggested renaming together with > > the > > global remapping feature is fully complient with DSFG and easy to use > > I see. > > > > The rights we demand are usually for special cases. For example, > > > someone might want to create LaTeX Plus with some of his/her new ideas > > > for how document formatting should be done. Or, you guys might get hit > > > by a bus, and our obligation to our users requires us to make sure that > > > LaTeX is taken care of in your absence while the Project figures out who > > > should take over. Or maybe no one wants to take over, and we maintain > > > it as a legacy package (which we do for lots of the things we ship). > > > > - if somebody wants to make LATeX plus he can already and it is simple and > > can reuse all things untouched with the above method (and in fact is > > already done, eg by Lambda > > > > - if we get hit by a bus (which we hopefully are not) then the maintainers > > clause would allow to have people take over without the need to start a > > new > > fork > > - if nobody wouldwant to takeover you could become maintainer (and > > support it > > as a legacy package) again without the need to make a fork > > > > so there is no problem with the rights needed by Debian for a) its users > > nor > > for b) itself > > As long as the rights in the DFSG are granted, then yes, you are > correct. > > > > 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 pristine copy of LaTeX as well. > > > > > > Comments? Branden, Walter, Mark, and Jeremy, I'm especially interested > > > in your opinions, since you three are the current objectors. > > > > before anybody comments, please keep in mind that this has to work for > > the whole of LaTeX, eg something roughly of the size of tetex at least. > > The fork of course can be as small as it wish (even if it becomes useless > > this > > way). > > It sounds like we would need to define the scope of LaTeX in this case. > > > > > Personally I think also we could go one step further (though others > > my call me > > > > back): already provide two formats > > > > > > > > - pristine latex > > > > - nonportable-latex (for the lack of a better name, for them moment) > > > > > > > > where nonportable-latex is a latex-variant format that contains the > > > > fileremapping feature builtin. Then then for each file type in > > pristine LaTeX > > > > there would be a "shadow" file type that could be used to modify > > things to > > > > your hearts wishes as long as you use the nonpartable-latex. if > > properly > > > > drafted > > > > it could be assured by LPPL that shadow files can't be restricted from > > > > modifying in place. would that help? > > > > > > It sounds like this is a "subcase" of the case I mentioned above, where > > > you can change the name of LaTeX and distribute a pristine LaTeX, but > > > then can otherwise modify files without renames for not-LaTeX. Let me > > > know if I'm missing something. > > > > i think you missed something. With my suggestion the only thing one would > > need > > to do if one would want to modify (and distribute) any file under LPPL that > > falls under the filename rename requirenment is to copy it to its "shadow > > file" which could then be modified freely (without further restriction). > > And dueto the fact that we already provide the two formats nothing else > > would > > need to be done. > > This might be useful, but I'm not sure it satisfies the objections I've > seen. > > > > As I mentioned before, the fonts are in a limbo state while we figure > > > out if we think data files should be required to meet the DFSG. As for > > > the rest of TeX, I suspect that this will be a future topic of > > > discussion here. > > > > well, do you say that plain.tex is a data file? if that's the case how > > different is this from latex.ltx (which contains most of thecode in > > plain.tex)? > > > > because if thats the case then the whole of what is currently distributed > > under LPPL wouldn't make any problem any more as they would all be data > > files. :-) > > In one sense. I don't think anyone disagrees that they contain active > content, though. > > > > But whatever the outcome for TeX, if LaTeX is deemed DFSG-free in the > > > final analysis, you won't have that taken away from you if TeX is moved > > > to non-free. > > > > no. whatever the outcome is for TeX, LaTeX will go with it at least if it > > is > > declared unfree because with TeX not in the free tree of Debian, LaTeX > > there > > would be useless. > > Not so. "main" and "contrib" contain all DFSG-free software. If TeX > moves to "non-free", then LaTeX would move to "contrib". > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
