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 *
> 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 string
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > > What if this md5sum were computed using TeX? Assuming reasonable
> > > > performance, would that be a s
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 25 Jul 2002 23:36:22 +0200
>
> I can't imagine that it would be acceptable for the LaTeX people that
> a change in the LaTeX *kernel* would make it legal to hack in another
> file that, from their point of wiev, is part of an entirely
> differe
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
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 p
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > What if this md5sum were computed using TeX? Assuming reasonable
> > > performance, would that be a solution?
> > Not really, I think - for where would the
Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:50:49 -0700 (PDT), Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Let me tell you how the things are organized in the TeX world. There
> >> are dozens of TeX implementations. Some are f
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 01:14:12AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Could we also pseudo-uniquely identify COPYING.OpenSSL with an
> > MD5 checksum? That is:
>
> I think in the upstream sources, the file is called "LICENSE", and it
> changes once a y
> Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Yes. This seems to be a flaw in LaTeX - it doesn't interactively identify
> > itself when run.
On 25 Jul 2002, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Huh? The LaTeX I run identifies itself quite plainly in the third line
> of the output:
Excellent, you're right (I
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could we also pseudo-uniquely identify COPYING.OpenSSL with an
> MD5 checksum? That is:
I think in the upstream sources, the file is called "LICENSE", and it
changes once a year (because of the included copyright statement), so
including a md5sum is
At Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:50:49 -0700 (PDT), Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Let me tell you how the things are organized in the TeX world. There
>> are dozens of TeX implementations. Some are free, some are commercial,
>> some are open, some are
At 25 Jul 2002 14:14:18 -0500, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The procedures that would be described in the procedures document would
>reference the following ways of modifying LaTeX:
>
>1. Copy the file you want to modify to a different filename, and modify
>the copy. You don't need to
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
> files are expected, without anybody noticing).
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
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 16:58, Walter Landry wrote:
> > However, I'm not going to force this down the LaTeX community's
> > throat. If they don't want to do it, they don't have to. I just
> > think that it accomplishes their goals better than anything else,
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > What if this md5sum were computed using TeX? Assuming reasonable
> > performance, would that be a solution?
>
> Not really, I think - for where would the checksums to compare with
> come from? They coul
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:57:36 -0400, Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>> From: Brian Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:39:49 -0400
>> The terms of the copy of TeX on my computer appear to be rather
>> different: it's public domain with a trademarked name,
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What if this md5sum were computed using TeX? Assuming reasonable
> performance, would that be a solution?
Not really, I think - for where would the checksums to compare with
come from? They couldn't all be embedded in the kernel since the
kernel and t
Scripsit Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The license text would say something like this:
> -
> The Program may be modified in any way as long as one of the following
> conditions are met:
>
> - No part of Standard LaTeX is changed.
>
> - The Program does not represent itself as Standar
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
> > pro
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)
(r
> 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
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 3. Change or remove the behavior of the "register" call entirely (which
> is a kernel modification), and make sure that the modified kernel does
> not represent itself as LaTeX in name, diagnostic output, etc.
>
> (Option 3 might be expressly discouraged
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 16:19, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> David Turner writes:
> > OK, how about the following:
> >
> > As a special exception to the section titled CONDITIONS ON DISTRIBUTION
> > AND MODIFICATION ("Section 57"), you may modify the Program by
> > processing them with automated tr
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me tell you how the things are organized in the TeX world. There
> are dozens of TeX implementations. Some are free, some are commercial,
> some are open, some are closed. I would not be surprised if some of
> these are not written in C and do not use
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 17:32, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > However, when I modify the name of size12.clo I need to make sure that
> > article.cls can find my modified file. For example, article.cls
> > contains something like
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
> i
I think we've moved to a part of the debate where it would be helpful to
summarize current thinking on the license. I encourage everyone to read
this carefully, as I'm sure there are new concepts here for everyone
involved.
First of all, I'm assuming that all issues outside of the file renaming
p
>> 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:
I interpret the \NeedsTeXFormat requirement as:
[p
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 12:48, Brian Sniffen wrote:
> > 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:
I wrote:
> 1. Add a statement to the top of the file LICENSE.OpenSSL saying that
> since it was effectively an extension to the license statements in the
> individual source files in the hpoj package, only the copyright holder(s)
> of those source files (namely HP) may update the LICENSE.OpenSSL fi
> 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 h
> 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} u
> 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 ea
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 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
Richard Stallman wrote:
> I see one possible flaw: if someone includes a different COPYING.OpenSSL
> file, this notice would give permission for linking with something
> under that replaced file. I think that's a bug. It needs to state
> the OpenSSL license in some more reliable way.
Hi, Richard
At 04.17 +0200 2002-07-23, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>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 mu
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 mod
> 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 un
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 allo
> 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*
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 09:12:03PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> My question is: do you think this license exception is
> acceptable for use? That is, does it prevent the proprietary hijacking
> of the linked GPL-incompatible library? Can you see any flaws in this?
>
> I see
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 03:06:47AM -0700, David Paschal wrote:
> Let me know ASAP if there are any problems I need to fix before
> releasing hpoj-0.90. If nothing comes up then I plan to start the
> release process approximately 12-24 hours from now.
>
> Thanks for everybody's patience and cooper
I have checked into CVS the license changes which explicitly allow
linking with OpenSSL. If anybody would like to inspect these changes,
here are some sample files:
http://hpoj.sourceforge.net/hpoj-cvs/LICENSE
http://hpoj.sourceforge.net/hpoj-cvs/LICENSE.OpenSSL
http://hpoj.sourceforge.net/hpoj-c
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 17:32, Henning Makholm wrote:
> However, when I modify the name of size12.clo I need to make sure that
> article.cls can find my modified file. For example, article.cls
> contains something like
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ...
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> so I need to modify that lo
On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 18:17, Walter Landry wrote:
> Robin Fairbairns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > a klingon support package might very well patch some latex internals;
> > it will presumably provide some fonts, and so on. this is all allowed
>
> This is where we differ. I want to change the st
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 me
50 matches
Mail list logo
