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 simpl
"M. Drew Streib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Debian needs to think about a couple of things:
>
> (1) If there were a trademark on a filename, would you agree to use
> another name?
>
> (2) Would this make the copyright non-free? You would have the separation
> you're looking for, but sti
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:40PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
> In fact, serious thought ought to be given to using HP's solution as an
> example to others that have to deal with a similar problem. It sounds
> like almost the perfect OpenSSL->GPL linking exception.
Indeed, I have mentio
It hasn't substantially changed since Aladdin's PS reader was put into
non-free (gs-aladdin).
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm ITP'ing PDFlib which has an "Aladdin Free Public License". The
>full text is available from
>
> http://www.pdflib.com/pdflib/aladdin-lic
Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:24:38PM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
>
> > I'm ITP'ing PDFlib which has an "Aladdin Free Public License". The
> > full text is available from
>
> > http://www.pdflib.com/pdflib/aladdin-license.pdf
>
> > which in sho
In fact, serious thought ought to be given to using HP's solution as an
example to others that have to deal with a similar problem. It sounds
like almost the perfect OpenSSL->GPL linking exception.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
>[sorry for the broad CC]
>
>On Mon, Jul 22, 2002
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:24:38PM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> I'm ITP'ing PDFlib which has an "Aladdin Free Public License". The
> full text is available from
> http://www.pdflib.com/pdflib/aladdin-license.pdf
> which in short and non-legal terms comes down to
> - you may develop
Hi,
I'm ITP'ing PDFlib which has an "Aladdin Free Public License". The
full text is available from
http://www.pdflib.com/pdflib/aladdin-license.pdf
which in short and non-legal terms comes down to
- you may develop free software with PDFlib, provided you make all of your
own source code
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? If so,
> LPPL in case of modification without renaming could, for example,
> require to change an argument o
23-Jul-02 15:02 Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
> 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
> solution (thereby actually violating the
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 02:24:13AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > remember LPPL is not the license for the LaTeX kernel it is a
> > license being applied these days to several hundreds of indepeneded
> > works (individually!).
>
> Oops. Is the kernel under a different license than LPPL?
I susp
On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Do you think that it is non-free for a license to require *distributors*
> to always provide the option to use pristine source when running
> something?
Definitely non-free. Distributors may be required to provide pristine
source and patches, but must be allo
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Added in LPPL3:
> > {+If The Program is distributed in a packed form with a number of files
> > to be generated by some unpacking method from the distributed files,
> > then these derived files are logically (even if not physically
> > present
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 07:52:15PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
[LPPL3]
If The Program is distributed in a packed form with a number of files
to be generated by some unpacking method from the distributed files,
then these derived files are logically (even if not physically
present) part of T
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:31:26PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I think they have a legitimate concern about what we distribute versus
> what users do. What a user does may affect his machine and maybe a few
> others, but what Debian does can affect thousands of machines.
Consider that some of ou
David Turner writes:
> I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
> think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
> speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
> decisions yet.
hmmm, perhaps not, but Richard Stallman
Scripsit "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If the derived work is licensed under the LPPL, but does not provide an
> "easy" remapping facility, then the derived work is not DFSG-free.
In this case the easy remapping (or one of the easy remapping options)
is to simply provide a *freshly written* f
Hi David!
You wrote:
> > Plus, you're talking about other files that are most definitely part of
> > LaTeX that are generated here. It would be different if it required
> > that gcc be installed in /usr/bin, for example.
>
> No, I'm making a suggestion that, if a file is distributed under the
>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:05:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It doesn't matter whether the modification is easy or hard. I think the
> assertions of the Free Software Foundation and some of my fellow
> Debian developers are misguided in this respect. The DFSG says nothing
> about how incon
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm writes:
> also not violating LPPL but violating the spirit of it would be to add an
> article.cls that just contained
> \input{article-with-recurity-problem-removed.cls}.
If such a simple-minded technique will not count in court as a
23-Jul-02 18:46 Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>> The license already allows sub-works within LaTeX to have additional
>> modification requirements beyond the LPPL. If you thought that some of
>> the sub-authors would disagree with relaxing the file naming requirement
>> when changing the name of the
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 18:35, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 19:29, David Turner wrote:
> > I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
> > think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
> > speaking for the FSF here, just for me.
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 18:34, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:09:38PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > It's not so hard to imagine a similar situation outside of TeX-world.
> > To quote a recently seen example:
> >
> > nautilus -> libgnomevfs0
> >
> > If you rebuild libgnomevfs0 a
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 19:29, David Turner wrote:
> I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
> think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
> speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
> decisions yet.
>
> Added in LP
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:09:38PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> It's not so hard to imagine a similar situation outside of TeX-world.
> To quote a recently seen example:
>
> nautilus -> libgnomevfs0
>
> If you rebuild libgnomevfs0 and link it to OpenSSL, then you change the
> license status of n
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 16:36, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > The rights we demand are usually for special cases.
>
> I strongly disagree. The rights we demand are guaranteed to our users,
> and they get to decide what's a special case and what's a burning need.
Right.
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 La
I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
decisions yet.
Added in LPPL3:
{+If The Program is distributed in a packed form with a
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 17:58, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Now, a DFSG-free program only needs one DFSG-free version of all of its
> dependencies to be in main (and not contrib), but this is getting messy.
> If B depends on A, and either A or B can be modified in any way, but some
> modifications to A may
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
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 p
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 12:03:46AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > If I remove any given features from a BSD-licensed program, it remains
> > free.
>
> but the same would be true for the LPPL as proposed to be rewritten by me with
> the help of Jeff and others.
>
> I repeat the essential poi
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 17:03, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Frank Mittelbach pointed out that the LPPL itself is not transitive,
> so the "code from an LPPL'ed work" can be placed under a license that
> says "do anything you want, but don't rename it back to Foo". I hadn't
> thought of that, and I thin
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 PROT
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
> > > > LaTe
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) wh
reassign 154027 gnome-vfs2
merge 154027 153642
thanks
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 17:44, Joe Drew wrote:
> [Sorry if this ends up arriving twice.]
As Junichi Uekawa pointed out to me, he had previously filed a bug on
gnome-vfs2, #153642, which also includes a (preliminary) gnutls patch.
--
Joe Drew <
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 07:00:39PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> listing them, would be a nice try but hopeless as you would need to keep track
> of i would guess more than 1000 individual works that end up in tetex texmf
> trees. That would not be automatable and as a manual process it would be
Glenn Maynard writes:
> If I remove any given features from a BSD-licensed program, it remains
> free.
but the same would be true for the LPPL as proposed to be rewritten by me with
the help of Jeff and others.
I repeat the essential point is that requirement to be able to apply LPPL
would be w
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 exce
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 03:58:55PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Well, one of the properties of free software is that you can change it
> > :)
>
> I thought the primary benefit was to have unending discussions about license
> issues... :)
That's another of the properties o
Branden,
thank you very much for that detailed set of comments.
> 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 restric
Package: libgnomevfs2-0
Version: 2.0.1-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid
[Sorry if this ends up arriving twice.]
pisces:~$ ldd /usr/lib/libgnomevfs-2.so
[...]
libssl.so.0.9.6 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.0.9.6 (0x40249000)
libcrypto.so.0.9.6 => /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 (0x40275000)
[...]
Linking anythin
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 03:58:55PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> Are all derived works from DFSG-free packages DFSG-free?
>
> No. The BSD network stack is DFSG-free. But Microsoft's implementation of
> it is not.
But that's due to them licensing their changes under another, non-free
license, not du
> David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However the disagreements there from the Debian side seem to be
> > characterisable as "it can't work" or "I'd have no respect for someone
> > who uses such a licence".
I regret making that comment, and I apologize for it. I intended to say that
Richard Braakman wrote:
> 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
> 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 understan
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 t
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 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 y
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 16:12, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > There most certainly are patents on mp3. I won't comment on enforceability
> > or relevance. Regardless, the burden of proof is on the violator
> > of the patents, as they have already been granted.
> > http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.
Hi M.!
You wrote:
> There most certainly are patents on mp3. I won't comment on enforceability
> or relevance. Regardless, the burden of proof is on the violator
> of the patents, as they have already been granted.
> http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html
Do these patents also apply to p
"g tr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I would like to know what you think about this license :
> http://www.freeusp.org/FreeUSP_License.html
> Could it be assimilated as GPL ? Would the software licensed under these
> terms be accepted in debian ?
> Tahnks for your help and sorry for my eng
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. T
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 re
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 wh
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 07:52:09PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
>If Debian wants to declare (and presumably delete from the main
>distribution) the software under this license, it would be
>hypocrisy to keep TeX and fonts. I wonder whether people realize
>that this means a complete
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:49:51PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> A long while ago Adrian Bunk filed bugs such as #65797 saying that MP3
> decoders, in addition to encoders, were patented. Discussion at that
> time went along the lines of "Prove it," and nothing ever happened. No
> mp3 decoder was ever m
Hi all,
I would like to know what you think about this license :
http://www.freeusp.org/FreeUSP_License.html
Could it be assimilated as GPL ? Would the software licensed under these
terms be accepted in debian ?
Tahnks for your help and sorry for my english.
Vincent
_
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:37:21AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> really the free source), and any command-name limitation should only
> be done via trademark.
IANAL, TINLA.
Trademark protection can sometimes be enforced without the actual filing
of a trademark application, depending on use, although
A long while ago Adrian Bunk filed bugs such as #65797 saying that MP3
decoders, in addition to encoders, were patented. Discussion at that
time went along the lines of "Prove it," and nothing ever happened. No
mp3 decoder was ever moved to non-free, to the best of my knowledge.
Has there been an
Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO. No one burning CDs
> > > from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that
> > > even non-profits cannot exercise this option.
>
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> As I said earlier, the entire reason this sentence exists, as I
> understand it, was as the result of an unsuccessful effort to persuade
> Daniel J. Bernstein and/or the University of Washington to license some
> software under DFSG-free terms. In bo
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
> distri
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
> distri
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
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 p
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> as far as TeX is concerned I tried to put up references to what could be
> called a license and copyright notices in
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00321.html
>
> and Walter is wrong, it concerns file names and t
> 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
> Um, no. The real objection is: it's not DFSG free.
Last time I asked for an objective list of places where people thought
LPPL didn't meet the DFSG, someone posted such a list and Frank I think
addressed all the raised points in his last draft, didn't he?
> The other comments are attempts to
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", thoug
David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the one area where there will probably be disagreement is over
> the "renaming rule" however that eventually gets worded.
>
> However the disagreements there from the Debian side seem to be
> characterisable as "it can't work" or "I'd have no r
Glenn Maynard writes:
> I've split this off, since I don't think mixing the LaTeX and (Te)TeX
> licensing problems is a good idea.
they are related but you are right this is a separate issue and should be
discussed separately.
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
>
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 se
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 requir
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, a
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 S
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
-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. Bu
> 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
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
sorry, I shouldn't have tried to answer your private mail in haste while
getting my coat to rush to the office.
I made a two typos ad least and one important one:
> as of now it would mean that for each individual work under LPPL you have
to
> folow its license meaning you have to rename the work
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
> DFSG-
-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
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.
Question 1:
Suppose you have a program source foo.c with some license.
Suppose this license "restricts" foo.c from being modified but allows
distribution of foo.c
plu
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:38:19PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 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 vio
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO. No one burning CDs
> > from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that
> > even non-profits cannot exercise this option.
>
> Err... They have received t
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:32:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Uh, _technically_ you can symlink it (or write a wrapper), but
> _technically_ you could just mv it, too. But we try to adhere to the
> spirit as well as the letter of the license, don't we, which would stop
> us from doing that, don'
> Err, are you sure this is largely due to the license change, and not to
> other changes in the Unix world?
I don't want to disapoint you but it's most likely true that most tex
use doesn't happen in the unix world:-) (although as it happens a good
part of latex was written on a Debian system..
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".
> 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 lic
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 08:05:10PM -0700, PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1)
wrote:
> please forward the LICENSE
> file distributed with the OpenSSL version that Debian provides, so I can
> make sure it's truly "identical" to what I think it is. Hopefully they
> don't change the wording of their li
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 06:30:05PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 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 c
> but we can assume either position without having any
> bearing on LPPL being DSFG-complient or not.
>
> right?
yes exactly, just as i said
me> It is also irrelevant to a general discussion of LPPL,
However the point keeps being re-raised:-)
David
__
> Registering "LaTeX" as a trademark would have given you much more power
> (i.e. real power) to discourage such things without requiring such high
> standards for others wanting to play around with the code.
It wouldn't have given any protection at all to users of the package
longtable (which wa
Thomas Bliesener wrote:
> CDs are bloody cheap only if you produce a certain amount of them (e.g.
> 2000 Debian CD sets which would be 28,000 CDs). If you produce only 500
Nice calculation... *shiver* *fear*
Regards,
Joey
--
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to
Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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
Could you reread and check?
> > I plan to add this to http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ and would
> > like the advice to
Walter Landry wrote:
> This may eliminate some disributors fears about having to do unlimited
> distribution at their own expense.
Ok.
Regards,
Joey
--
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
Please always Cc to me when r
Thomas Bliesener wrote:
> Perhaps it's worth to mention 3b):
>
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
> to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
> physically performing source distribution, ...
How is that different to (2)?
(2) The distrib
[sorry for the broad CC]
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 08:05:10PM -0700, PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1)
wrote:
> Is this solution OK for everybody?
I see nothing objectionable from a DFSG perspective in the language you
have proposed.
Thanks for working on this issue!
--
G. Branden Robinson
99 matches
Mail list logo
