> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
>> I'm not sure about Mark Rafn and Glenn Maynard.
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I'm not a DD.
Nor am I. I'm just a user who shoots my mouth off, and I learn more from
d-l than I contribute.
Put me down as "it doe
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 01:32:51AM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you maybe already know, RealNetworks (the guys behind RealPlayer
> client and server) want to release their next version under an
> OSI-certified licence. See http://open.helixcommunity.org
Clause 13.7 of the RPSL v
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:04:25PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> -
> 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
Hi. After some back-and-forth discussion with our attorney, I would like to
propose the following OpenSSL exception statement to be applied to the
HP-copyrighted portion of the hpoj code which needs this (libptal and the
libraries and applications that link to it, but not ptal-mlcd):
In additio
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 08:27:31PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Is anybody investigating this?
I filed bug#153257 about this. I don't know if anyone is investigating it :)
Frankly, I thought tetex licensing had been discussed and resolved a long
time ago, and I'm surprised that there's still a c
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 18:24, Lars Hellström wrote:
> At 01.31 +0200 2002-07-22, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >Right. The question is "what modification rights do you have?" There's
> >good reason to believe that the "must change the file name" clause must
> >apply to derived works as well, so each time
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
> seem to be all of the regul
I've split this off, since I don't think mixing the LaTeX and (Te)TeX
licensing problems is a good idea.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I disagree. DFSG 4 was, as I understand, drafted with explicit
> > reference to the situation with TeX, which is similar in m
On Jul 22, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> The question is, who should say "yes" and "no"? Sorry for being
> ignorant about the rules -- but is there a mechanism of voting or
> other decision taking of the list? How it is formally initiated?
The only formal procedures available are:
- Action by the Debi
Hi,
As you maybe already know, RealNetworks (the guys behind RealPlayer
client and server) want to release their next version under an
OSI-certified licence. See http://open.helixcommunity.org
That would allow us to package the client and the server to have it
into Debian. They're building their
At 01.31 +0200 2002-07-22, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>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 n
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 15:50, Walter Landry wrote:
> > If file renaming is a real axiom, then I don't think that Debian and
> > the LaTeX Project can come to an agreement. DFSG #4 has never been
> > interpreted as allowing that kind of restriction, and I do
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still, we also have this problem with other non-copyleft licenses, such
> as BSD. I believe there were some non-free files in XFree86 at one
> point, for example, which had to be removed from our tarball.
Debian still only has to review licenses. It does
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 users that spoke on
> this list, and the Debian users that mailed me privately, still believe that
> the requirement for renaming files LaTeX s
Thomas Bliesener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > This is always the easier way. Just giving source right out is always
> > easier than fretting about the written offer clause. And since CDs
> > are so bloody cheap, it's trivial. Heck, why not just always ship
>
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 10:34, Mark Rafn wrote:
> I'm with Walter here. It's not "obviously OK", though it's not obviously
> unfree either. If it's ONLY renaming of foo.c AND there aren't many files
> that depend on the name of foo.c, we would likely put up with it. If it's
> renaming foo.c, ba
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> > I concur with the FSF's judgment, BTW--because of the existence of the
> > filename mapping feature, the hurdle of renaming files (while
> > exceedingly obnoxious) is not so high that it renders the pac
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The point is not the fork on that level it is the fork on the package
> level. LaTeX users, just as pdflatex users, etc. expect their documents if
> processed at one site with LaTeX (or with pdflatex, etc) to come out the same
> if processed with LaTe
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 16:02, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > You might be interested in Thomas's followup:
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00407.html
>
> sure i am. but at the same time I just saw the reply by Walter
>
> message number perhaps
>
> http:
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To say the truth, it is ok to have kgcc, egcs, gcc on the same
> system. The problem is, you need to decide what is *the* $CC for each
> program.
And if it's posix, there's c89, which is guaranteed on Posix systems
to be the ANSI C compiler.
But the
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 13:46, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We already have to vet upstream whenever they release new versions of
> > software. For example, the Python license changed after 1.5.2 to become
> > incompatible with the GPL; we skipped Python 1.6 and
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 15:50, Walter Landry wrote:
> If file renaming is a real axiom, then I don't think that Debian and
> the LaTeX Project can come to an agreement. DFSG #4 has never been
> interpreted as allowing that kind of restriction, and I don't see why
> Debian should make an exception fo
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 14:31, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> it seems to me that by now we are turning around in cycles rehashing arguments
> that are important in general (can LaTeX have security problems, yes or no?;
> how does one do software development ...) but not with respect to the problem
> at h
> You might be interested in Thomas's followup:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00407.html
sure i am. but at the same time I just saw the reply by Walter
message number perhaps
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00431.html
Jeff,
> > I am afraid you do not know about the recent history of gcc.
> >
> > [...]
>
> We, as a project, understand this perhaps better than you do. We
> currently ship three different C compilers for woody: 2.95 in most
> cases, 2.96 for certain architectures, and 3.0 for one archite
David + Jeff
> > The problem is that I do not believe that the security model of TeX and
> > the security model of LaTeX are absolutely equivalent. They may be
> > close, but "close" doesn't cut it in the security world.
>
> I don't think they are close. I assert they are the same as latex
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> it seems to me that by now we are turning around in cycles rehashing arguments
> that are important in general (can LaTeX have security problems, yes or no?;
> how does one do software development ...) but not with respect to the problem
> a
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 07:06, Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
> If that's the feeling and attitude of the majority of the people here then
> the whole exercise
> is pointless. I hope this is a singular incidence. If not please tell us so
> and we might as well stop
> the discussion
You might be intereste
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 09:20, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> Is this legal? As follows from the skipped part of your letter, there
> are doubts. Let me now put it this way: if it is legal, then *I think*
> it is legal to use non-quite-latex without renaming in these
> circumstances. If it is not, then you
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jul 2002 15:02:28 -0500
>
>
> Would it really contradict your professed goals to have three
> LaTeX-alike systems floating around, one named LaTeX, one named FooTeX,
> and one named BarTeX?
>
Of course not. Actually there are several systems
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 09:49, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > My /usr/local/bin can
> > > be NFS-exported to hundreds of computers. Even my box can have
> > > hundreds logins there.
> >
> > Yes, but in the former case, you are distributing the program to
> >
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 10:22, Joe Moore wrote:
> Jeff Licquia wrote
> > On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> >> My /usr/local/bin can
> >> be NFS-exported to hundreds of computers. Even my box can have
> >> hundreds logins there.
> >
> > Yes, but in the former case, you are distri
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 11:05, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:27:04 -0700
> >
> > Perhaps latex is a miserably poor interchange format. Or perhaps
> > the language needed a clear standard and clear documentation. After
> > all, the
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:22:50PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Don't reinvent the wheel. If you want the legal assurance of a
> trademark, just go and get one.
It seems that people who havn't been willing to act in good faith (eg.
people who wouldn't follow guidelines for this if they didn't app
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:31:54 +0200
> From: Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To go forward I propose
>
> A) I would like you to come to a conclusion on (1) assuming the above Axiom
>
The question is, who should say "yes" and "no"? Sorry for being
ignorant about the rules -- but i
Folks,
it seems to me that by now we are turning around in cycles rehashing arguments
that are important in general (can LaTeX have security problems, yes or no?;
how does one do software development ...) but not with respect to the problem
at hand which still is (to me at least) the following two
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> This is always the easier way. Just giving source right out is always
> easier than fretting about the written offer clause. And since CDs
> are so bloody cheap, it's trivial. Heck, why not just always ship
> both?
CDs are bloody cheap only if you produce a certai
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that the only people who are really authoritative are the
> > ftp-admins. They generally defer to the consensus of debian-legal,
> > though. They might listen to a direct order from the technical
> > committee and/or a General Resolution.
>
> P
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:06, Walter Landry wrote:
> > But what if latex evolved to the point where there is a cascade of
> > dependencies? Is Debian going to have to monitor what the LaTeX
> > people do, just to make sure that they don't make it too hard t
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 03:38, David Carlisle wrote:
>
> > But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
> > "latex".
>
> That is a very tired argument.
And this is not?
> Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
> been remarkably successful i
> The problem is that I do not believe that the security model of TeX and
> the security model of LaTeX are absolutely equivalent. They may be
> close, but "close" doesn't cut it in the security world.
I don't think they are close. I assert they are the same as latex is just
part of the input to
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > First of all, requiring a source file rename is, I think, obviously OK;
> > > renaming "foo.c" to "bar.c" doesn't really affect your rights, and is
> > > mostly an annoyance (tracking down Makefile references and so on).
> On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> For debian people: please consider this. I believe this voids many of the
> intents of the license, as previously mentioned (sysadmins can use this
> remapping feature to make \documentclass{article} load some other file
> instead of 'article.cls'),
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> > Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > for that hypothetical license Jeff was talking about I wouldn't
> > > know, but even that wouldn't be a problem as you could load your new
> > > makefile wit
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 01:37, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Would you not need to rename the Makefile too if you edit it?
That would depend on the license. I could foresee a license making a
distinction between Makefiles and .c files.
The point is not that a particular hypothetical license is free or
David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LaTeX is distributed with a free Licence that most independent people
> have taken as meeting the DFSG.
Where did you get this from? I have doubts as to whether any
independent people (i.e. not affiliated with Debian or the LaTeX
project) have really co
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 07:29, David Carlisle wrote:
> In the case of security it is worth saying again that this
>
> > Security is only one of many good reasons to change LaTeX, and it's
> > certainly a valid one, even for LaTeX. The lack of security problems in
> > LaTeX is possible a happy accid
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > for that hypothetical license Jeff was talking about I wouldn't
> > know, but even that wouldn't be a problem as you could load your new
> > makefile with -f. it wouldn't be very useful as the Makefile is a
>
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could people please comment on
>
> http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
>
> I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
> like the advice to be correct.
I would only add one sentence to the end of part two. It says:
(
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 03:13, Javier Bezos wrote:
>
> Let's suppose now that you may modify files without changing
> filenames. I edit article.sty, but it so happens that there are
> some packages (which I'm not aware of) which rely in the
> exact behaviour of article.sty and I don't want to break
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:28:38 -0700
>
> > I think that ultimately it is the University and its users who are
> > best place to make that decision, and not the LaTeX mafia.
>
> I think that LaTeX users
"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As the GPL says:
> >
> > (2) You can give them an offer to provide the source to anyone (not
> > merely your own customers) at a later date--that's you, yourself, not
> > some other third party--at cost alone.
>
> How long is this offer valid? The GPL
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One alternative which is not listed, which might make sense for some
> vendors, is to offer either "binary" or "binary + source" CD sets, for
> the same price. That way they don't have to worry about the 3-year
> offer, and customers don't have to bo
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> for that hypothetical license Jeff was talking about I wouldn't
> know, but even that wouldn't be a problem as you could load your new
> makefile with -f. it wouldn't be very useful as the Makefile is a
> building tool, but it wouldn't be an obstacle
Javier Bezos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And lppl is intended to give you the right to do stupid things (yes
> you can do them), but without perjudicing the right of all latex
> users to have a latex working correctly and with documents which
> can be distributed freely.
Huh? Even if it were i
>> It's not expressly forbidden or expressly allowed, so we have to figure
>> out if it's OK or not. As I mentioned, it doesn't seem onerous as a
>> requirement; just an mv/cp and a few Makefile edits.
>
>Would you not need to rename the Makefile too if you edit it?
for that hypothetical license
Javier Bezos writes:
>
> > Freedom includes the right to do things that you (and even I) think
> > are stupid. Debian stands for freedom.
>
> And lppl is intended to give you the right to do stupid things (yes
> you can do them), but without perjudicing the right of all latex
> users to h
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:28:38 -0700
>
> I think that ultimately it is the University and its users who are
> best place to make that decision, and not the LaTeX mafia.
>
I think that LaTeX users community is pretty happy with the way the
things a
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:27:04 -0700
>
> David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Prior to the latex2e licence (which from which LPPL was derived)
> > "latex" could be (and often was) locally modified and re-distributed.
> > It got so bad by
> As the GPL says:
>
> (2) You can give them an offer to provide the source to anyone (not
> merely your own customers) at a later date--that's you, yourself, not
> some other third party--at cost alone.
How long is this offer valid? The GPL says "at least three years".
A non-profit third party
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jul 2002 00:47:39 -0500
>
> On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > Exactly. I really do not see the difference between running a program
> > from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin/. What is the difference
> > between AFS and NF
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 06:05:35PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> I'm completely with you on that; what I meant was that when trying to
> clearly answer the question "where should the name-change requirement
> kick in?" that the LaTeX guys would probably be primarily considering
> the expectations
Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> well they do to some extend but not really. The simplest solution for a
> distributor would be (beside informing the authors of articl.cls)
> simply not to distribute article.cls but only
> article-with-recurity-problem-removed.cls (no i'm not really suggesting
> thisas a
Jeff Licquia wrote
> On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote:
>> > From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Date: 21 Jul 2002 22:59:26 -0500
>> >
>> > It's crucial to your point, therefore, that there not be a
>> > distinction between running the program from /usr/local/bin or
>> > /a
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jul 2002 00:23:22 -0500
>
> On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:43, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > > From: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > >
> > > Take my company. There are 4 of us working there. I'm quite likely to want
> > > to make a small modifi
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Could people please comment on
> http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
> I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
> like the advice to be correct.
Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 12:43:53AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:35:42 +1200
> > From: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Take my company. There are 4 of us working there. I'm quite likely to want
> > to make a small modification to some part of LaTeX to make it beh
Martin Schulze schrieb am 22.07.:
> http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
>
> I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
> like the advice to be correct.
Perhaps it's worth to mention 3b):
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
to gi
On Sunday 21 July 2002 22:59, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 22:40, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > 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
> Let's take an example that will likely resonate with typesetters a bit
> more: the euro. How did you arrange to add the euro symbol to TeX and
> LaTeX? What would have happened if I would have needed a euro symbol
> before it was added?
You do the same before as after
you find (or make) some
If that's the feeling and attitude of the majority of the people here then
the whole exercise
is pointless. I hope this is a singular incidence. If not please tell us so
and we might as well stop
the discussion
regards
frank
-Ursprungliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:26:57AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Could people please comment on
>
> http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
One alternative which is not listed, which might make sense for some
vendors, is to offer either "binary" or "binary + source" CD sets, for
the same p
> Freedom includes the right to do things that you (and even I) think
> are stupid. Debian stands for freedom.
And lppl is intended to give you the right to do stupid things (yes
you can do them), but without perjudicing the right of all latex
users to have a latex working correctly and with doc
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:38:47AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
>>> But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
>>> "latex".
>>
>> That is a very tired argument.
>> Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
>> been remarkably successful in i
Could people please comment on
http://master.debian.org/~joey/legal.en.html
I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
like the advice to be correct.
Regards,
Joey
--
All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory...
-- Larry Wall
Please
Got a reply from elektrostore in Swedish.
Translation of the reply follows:
---
Hi Per!
We're aware of the similarity, we have however not been able to pin down where
the "spinning thing" comes from. We've tried to reach the person who made it,
but the advertising agency which produced it has
> Perhaps latex is a miserably poor interchange format. Or perhaps
> the language needed a clear standard and clear documentation. After
> all, the way the world of C programmers solved this problem was by
> careful standardization, not by insisting that there should be Only
> One C Compiler.
I
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I pointed out, good practise alone would suggest that the University
> didn't call their hacked version "LaTeX" in the latter case. But where
> is the line to be drawn, if it is to be drawn at all?
I think that ultimately it is the University and its
David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Prior to the latex2e licence (which from which LPPL was derived)
> "latex" could be (and often was) locally modified and re-distributed.
> It got so bad by around 1990 that passing a latex document from one site
> to another was largely a matter of luck
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:38:47AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> > But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
> > "latex".
>
> That is a very tired argument.
> Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
> been remarkably successful in its sta
> But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
> "latex".
That is a very tired argument.
Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
been remarkably successful in its stated aims.
Prior to the latex2e licence (which from which LPPL was derived)
> OK, here's what I was thinking.
>
> 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
> "article-hacked.sty".
>
> Oops, now things aren't working right.
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > When I execute a program, this is not a distribution. When I allow
> > others to execute it, I distribute it -- even if there is no actual
> > copying of bits between magnetic media.
>
> Actually, it's not clear that this is true. For example, technically a
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > First of all, requiring a source file rename is, I think, obviously OK;
> > > renaming "foo.c" to "bar.c" doesn't really affect your rights, and is
> > > mostly an annoyance (tracking down Makefile references and so on).
> >
> > Why is this obviously
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:06, Walter Landry wrote:
> But what if latex evolved to the point where there is a cascade of
> dependencies? Is Debian going to have to monitor what the LaTeX
> people do, just to make sure that they don't make it too hard to
> modify? What if a third party modifies LaTe
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:06, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > First of all, requiring a source file rename is, I think, obviously OK;
> > renaming "foo.c" to "bar.c" doesn't really affect your rights, and is
> > mostly an annoyance (tracking down Makefile reference
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 10:20:04PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I guess it really comes down to users' expectations, but this is not an area
> It is perfectly reasonable to want to help out users' expectations.
>
> However, an important freedom associated with free software is the
> fr
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 02:42, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> what i meant, however, (and sorry for not expressing that good enough) is that
> LPPL doesn't pile up names by default, ie simply through forking. That is
> there is no requirement for Alice to put BAZ under LPPL just because FOO or
> BAR was.
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 21 Jul 2002 22:59:26 -0500
> >
> > It's crucial to your point, therefore, that there not be a distinction
> > between running the program from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin. I
> > think w
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:43, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:35:42 +1200
> > From: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > Take my company. There are 4 of us working there. I'm quite likely to want
> > to make a small modification to some part of LaTeX to make it behave ho
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess it really comes down to users' expectations, but this is not an area
> that is amenable to watertight wording. I do however think that if you manage
> to answer this question clearly and without ambiguity, then you may find that
> you have come u
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > First of all, requiring a source file rename is, I think, obviously OK;
> > renaming "foo.c" to "bar.c" doesn't really affect your rights, and is
> > mostly an annoyance (tracking down Makefile references and s
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
> > I must be thick headed. How can you say that the kernel will never
> > need to be modified for a new package? I accept that in most cases,
> > this is true, but saying that it is always true is absurd.
>
> no its not. per
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter, i think, asked if one can't remove that checking code through another
> (independent) modification. The answer is yes, easily, but only by either
>
> - forking the latex kernel, ie running on a non-latex in which this whole
>discussion is
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First of all, requiring a source file rename is, I think, obviously OK;
> renaming "foo.c" to "bar.c" doesn't really affect your rights, and is
> mostly an annoyance (tracking down Makefile references and so on).
Why is this obviously OK? DFSG #4 allows p
96 matches
Mail list logo
