On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
> I suggest that this interpretation of "name" here is at best an implausible
> one. For one thing the word "name" has a number of interpretations, as it
> is a very general term. If your legalistic interpretation really was all
> that
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 18:20:12 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It's obvious to me that Boris wants TeX martyred at the hands of the
> DFSG, presumably so he can editorialize on how Debian has lost its way
> from the "true freedom" that is represented by TeX.
>
I am sor
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 05:22:14PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> I doubt it's that. I think it more likely that Thomas is arguing
> against your insistence that TeX be removed wholly from Debian by
> explaining his interpretation of the issues. In his interpretation,
> TeX is DSFG-free, and in your
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
> If you think such a license is non-free because the newfoobar in the first
> argument of \ProvidesPackage is "functional" then it would be inconsistent
> to not declare as non-free also a license that only requires a version
> number
Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1] On a completely off-topic matter, shouldn't that rather be "your
> wanting it to be so", with a possesive pronoun and the -ing form of the
> verb? Perhaps someone natively English-speaking can clarify this; I suspect
> it could be a matter on the l
Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In a broad sense of intent perhaps, but I got clear impression Thomas had
> something much more concrete and close in mind.
The GPL applies to anything that counts as a derivative work, with
some explicit exceptions (mere aggregation, for example).
On 04 Aug 2002 20:22:11 -0500, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 17:53, Lars Hellström wrote:
>> At 00.53 +0200 2002-08-03, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> >Since things like intention matter--and not just technical
>> >mechanism--this is just FUD.
>>
>> "FUD" ?
>>
>> On
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:10:12 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:53:20AM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:33:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > I repeat: the file renaming requirement is not DFSG-free, and you
>> > wanting it
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now there are people who do not like DFSG-4. Frank was told when he
> submitted the first draft of LPPL "Act as if there is no DFSG-4,
> because we do not like it anyway". They want to interpret DFSG-4 in
> such a way that it does not cover anything. Th
> Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 17:22:14 -0400
> From: Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I doubt it's that. I think it more likely that Thomas is arguing
> against your insistence that TeX be removed wholly from Debian by
> explaining his interpretation of the issues. In his interpretation,
> TeX is
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The CM fonts prohibit *all* modification--whether with changed names
> > or not--AFAICT. That makes them completely nonfree. It has nothing
> > to do with TeX, but with the CM fonts license.
>
> This statement is not correct.
>
> http://www.ctan.o
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 08 Aug 2002 14:01:29 -0700
>
> The CM fonts prohibit *all* modification--whether with changed names
> or not--AFAICT. That makes them completely nonfree. It has nothing
> to do with TeX, but with the CM fonts license.
>
This statement i
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Knuth wants TeX to be frozen at version pi when he dies;
> thereafter, no further changes may be made to Knuth's source."
>
> This doesn't make clear what TeX covers, nor what can be done
> with it. Depending on how you read "Knuth's source", it could
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I afraid you are in state of denial. You have certain ideas about
> programmer's freedom. You value these ideas too much, you just cannot
> accept the fact that Knuth does not share them.
I doubt it's that. I think it more likely that Thomas is arguin
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:21:10PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> My goodness! Here's where all our experiences with dynamic
> libraries pay off.
>
> For the love of all that is good in this world, when the LaTeX3
> team finally releases it to the world: please include these two things:
>
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:21:10 -0400
> From: Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> My goodness! Here's where all our experiences with dynamic
> libraries pay off.
Do you remember how glibc team broke the compatibility between MINOR
versions? It was a jolly sight
>
> For the love of
At 04:56 PM 8/8/02 -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Thomas, the wishes of Knuth need not to be divined. He expressed them
quite clearly. Why do not you read some FAQ, say,
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=TeXfuture
You think that's clear? The only thing pertinent to the argument, and
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:58:40 +0200
> From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> A lunatic author can make it impossible to get a stable system, most
> of the time even changes will not help to get a system which is also
> feasable to be used with interchanged documents from and to new a
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is all very interesting, but I am afraid it is outside of my
> scope.
As you've said several times, and proved quite well, you're ignorant
about the issues. Please, therefore, stop muddling the discussion.
> If you want to keep the notion that Te
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 08 Aug 2002 12:52:47 -0700
> No. I want to say:
>
> Knuth wanted to make TeX free, and he did. And the LaTeX people want
> a *different* license from the TeX license--indeed, they want one that
> is quite possibly non-free.
>
> Because t
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 03:04:11PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:26:26 +0200
> > From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > I will try to describe some worst-case scenario, to describe, what
> > it is
>
>
> [the scenario is omitted].
>
> You would be su
* Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020808 21:04]:
> [the scenario is omitted].
> You would be surprised, but this scenario is *not* imaginary. Actually
> this is what really happened to me. I think this story might be
> instructive in this discussion, so please bear with me.
The situation I tr
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > Date: 08 Aug 2002 12:19:03 -0700
>
> > > accepted them *includes* a guy named Donald Knuth. You want the right
> > > to interpret DFSG; don't you think Knuth deserves the right ot have a
> > > say in
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 08 Aug 2002 12:19:03 -0700
> > accepted them *includes* a guy named Donald Knuth. You want the right
> > to interpret DFSG; don't you think Knuth deserves the right ot have a
> > say in interpretation of his license?
>
> Of course. But he
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You see, I find this clause in a precedent. EC fonts are exactly this
> -- a derivative of CM fonts under other names. The "community" that
> accepted them *includes* a guy named Donald Knuth. You want the right
> to interpret DFSG; don't you think Knut
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:26:26 +0200
> From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I will try to describe some worst-case scenario, to describe, what
> it is
[the scenario is omitted].
You would be surprised, but this scenario is *not* imaginary. Actually
this is what really happened t
* Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020808 00:16]:
> TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document
> exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installation is the
> same as TeX on the e-print server or on my publisher's machine.
>
> Of course, Debian is free to distri
--On 08 August 2002 11:17 -0400 Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for your comments, I will look at these over next few days and see
how we can modify the license to allow RSAEuro Internet release to be
included with Debian. It will take me a couple of days to work through the
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 11:30:16AM +0100, RSAEuro General wrote:
>
>
> --On 08 August 2002 00:18 -0400 Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Hi, thanks for your mail. We would be interested in working something out
> to allow the Internet release of RSAEuro to be included with
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 02:05:04 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > Completely new systems based on TeX code? Huh?
> >
> > Glenn, if you do not know about such systems, this does not mean that
> > they do not exist, right?
>
> Boris, if it's based on TeX code, it's not a
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 08:00:43AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> >> Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (According to the GPL
> >> FAQ, it does)
> >
> > Yes, but it's not _creating_ a combined work (or a modified work, or
> > whatever), but _distributing_ it that is the issue.
>
> But that
Joe Drew wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 16:12, Joe Moore wrote:
["them" here refers to a GPL library linked to a GPL-incompatible work. The
link is performed by the end user, and the combined work is not distributed]
>> Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (According to the GPL
>> FAQ, it
On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 06:30, RSAEuro General wrote:
> > The second problem is in Item 2, (ii,iii, and v), which restricts those
> > who may wish to use the software for profit. These restrictions render the
> > license incompatible with Free Software guideline 6, which prohibits
> > discrimination
Consors France, à
la pointe de l'innovation en matière d
--On 08 August 2002 00:18 -0400 Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, thanks for your mail. We would be interested in working something out
to allow the Internet release of RSAEuro to be included with Debian.
I'd like to package RSAEURO 1.04i for inclusion in Debian GNU/Linux, but
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 07 Aug 2002 22:48:36 -0700
>
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Now it seems that Thomas does not agree with this understanding and
> > says that I do not interpret DFSG correctly. It may be so. I am a
> > Debian *user*, n
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 01:38:27AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
(my reply is a subset of TB's; elided)
> > Completely new systems based on TeX code? Huh?
>
> Glenn, if you do not know about such systems, this does not mean that
> they do not exist, right?
Boris, if it's based on TeX code, it'
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now it seems that Thomas does not agree with this understanding and
> says that I do not interpret DFSG correctly. It may be so. I am a
> Debian *user*, not a Debian developer. However, you seem to
> accept the second way to be valid.
The problem is t
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:55:52 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I am not a lawyer, so I cannot claim understanding of intricacies of
> > licenses. However, I think I understand Knuth's lucid writings about
> > his intentions with respect to TeX. He many times said that he want
39 matches
Mail list logo
