> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Mittelbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 10 April 2003 19:22
> To: Jeff Licquia
> Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
>
>
> Jeff Licquia writes:
>
> > Let me try to improve on Branden's versio
> > I've CC'ed this to a LaTeX person - any comments from the LaTeX crowd?
>
> I've removed the Cc again - Frank did read debian-legal the last time
> the LPPL was discussed, so I assume he is still (or again) subscribed.
Frank is subscribed I think, I'm currently not but am reading the thread
o
> Is this really saying that I can distribute The Work, or ANY Derived Work,
> under any license I choose, as long as 7a (which is really just a pointer
> to 5a, which says that if you're not the current maintainer, you must make
> modifications sufficiently obvious) is satisfied?
>
> For exampl
>> Strings for other programs (think browser id-strings) must be
>> modifiable to anything at all. Strings strictly for human consumption
>> can be required to indicate that it is different.
The distinction seems rather vague as machines can read messages
originally intended for humans, and vic
> Then he must be giving his earnest encouragements, and not a license,
> since the work is public domain, right?
I don't know.
I can understand the principle that if something is PD then you can't
claim licence conditions on it, however some who've indicated that they
have a better grasp of the
> TeX, METAFONT, and the CM fonts certainly were under his
> copyright at some point in the past, and there are copyright notices
> - From that era.
I see Martin has posted the text from vol E (ME).
Note that the "millenium edition" is fairly new (as its name suggests)
a combined set of all of
> Perhaps this should be taken to mean that even though
> they're now in the public domain, the wishes expressed in those
> copyright notices should still be followed?
I don't think the status of the released cm fonts has ever changed has
it? From the beginning the statements about copyright and
> The reference to enforcement by shunning and community effort seems to
> indicate otherwise. I've been trying to read that statement from
> every angle I can think of, but I just can't find a consistent meaning
> other than that Knuth has put this in the public domain, but makes strong
> reques
> And note that it begins with "I decided to put these fonts into the
> public domain; all I have asked is that ..."
As has been stated many times, the conditions on Knuth's programs and
fonts are scattered over many places, the copyright pages in books, and
comments in source code and readme fil
Having been away I just have just (rather depressingly) caught up with
the August archive of latex licence discussion.
There seems to be the usual quota of misinformation concerning the tex
licence, but one particular point was raised.
As has been mentioned the "rename clause" of computer modern
> This is especially true if you
> interpret the many different modules of LaTeX as separate works (as the
> LaTeX Project seems to do)
I don't see how you can do anything but consider them separate works.
If you are writing latex packages then latex is essentially a programming
language. So y
> If pushed, I will concede that this is illogical, and the rule should
> really be "filename limitations make a package non-free"
It's fine for you as an individual to think that _should_ be the case
(I happen to disagree but that's not relevant either) But Debian can't
take that position unless
> Or, I accept rather that sometimes a naming restriction is compatible,
>and sometimes its not.
>
>If the situation allows for the renaming of only a few things--and
>only user commands, really--then I don't mind *that* much. If the
>situation requires the renaming of a jillion things, then I mi
Thomas Bushnell wrote (in two messages)
> I think this is true, provided it's *one* renaming that's in question,
> and not a jillion.
> I've already said that if all that is necessary is changing the
> "latex" command name, then I don't object. That's in the category of
> a trademark (even if t
>
> > Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:07:06 +0100
> > From: David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > If you make a program that isn't called tex, are you saying you can
> > edit
> > plain.tex and call the modified file plain.tex without be
>> Why? If a file is outside the LaTeX search path, there is no reason to
>> keep it frozen. Actually the current LPPL explicitly gives you the
>> right to change a licensed file without renaming it, if you place it
>> outside of the LaTeX search path. It does not recommend it, but is
>> allowed ne
> I'm probably missing something obvious, but if the name "LaTeX" were
> trademarked and could only be used by systems that are created so as
> not to conflict with any package that could be obtained from CTAN, would
> that not actually provide better protection than is currently available?
we
> 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,
> while preserving the freedom to modify.
I'd think this was a joke but I have a horrible fee
> The "fine-ness" I was referring to was that, for works that add the
> "LPPL 1.2 or any later version" language to the license, we aren't
> required by law to hunt them down.
Law's the law but I just wanted to stress that this is one of (perhaps the
main) constraint that Frank and I have. Knowin
Jeff
> I've seen that some people include the "LPPL 1.2 or any later version"
> language into their license notice. Those people would be fine
> (although I would recommend that notice be given of this particular
> license change as a gesture of goodwill to the community).
No. I don't think the
> TeX is not similar at all (Why do people keep bringing this up?). The
> only thing you have to do is not call it TeX. You can then modify
> files in place all you want.
As has been shown before the situation with TeX isn't as clear cut as
you make out, and the situation with the cm fonts is a
> Understanding your goal a bit , I think I can state that it is not
> possible to release software that is both free and prevents users from
> being given a modified copy.
I agree with that as you write it, but I don't believe that saying you
must call the modified copy something else is the sam
> 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
> 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..
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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)
> A related attack might be possible. For example,
> \openout=~/.ssh/authorized-keys
sigh, every time I look at the archives of this list to see what's been
happening I see more misinformation.
As has been stated 1001 times whether or not LaTeX has access to the
filesystem is not under the cont
> I think you are mistaken. You are assuming that the engine used to process
> those macros will also not be changed; it would be quite possible to change
> LaTeX in such a way that it produced identical output from all valid LaTeX
> input whilst adding other functionality, if you modified it to
> Well, yes. OTOH, substituting pictures can also change layout, and
> pictures are clearly non-functional data.
document formatting systems have fonts they use in all documents.
They don't usually have pictures they use in all documents.
Changing the font metrics isn't like changing a picture
> My point is that ..
I give up. I don't think your point makes any sense, and as you only
assert it without giving any reasons I don't see what else there is to
say on the issue.
There is in any case no point continuing the thread as this is really a
general discussion about the merits of
> telnetd is a set of machine-language instructions. It doesn't actually
> have any capabilities to do anything.
This misses the point entirely so I'll try stating it another way.
latex essentially runs in a virtual machine provided by tex the program.
If you set the security options for tex-the
> Would a statement in the license that *either* of the following must
> happen be acceptable to the LaTeX project?
>
> * The modified copy of the Program is distributed under a name which
> clearly distinguishes it from Standard LaTeX, the unmodified copy.
>
> * Any files which share names be
> If these were the only restrictions (change contact info and change
> the name of the *program*, not the individual files), then we wouldn't
> be having this argument.
The filenames are part of the syntax of the language.
\documentclass{article}
does not mean "whatever article means on your
> you missed the point, which is that the changes in the Latex kernel
> had to be made in order for Klingon (or whatever language) to work.
> Don't tell me that there will never be a need to change the internals
> in order to make something work. You can't anticipate everything that
> will happen
> At some level, this type of requirement is unenforceable, isn't it? One
> can always name it "lsf" and create a wrapper "ls" that execs it. "lsf"
> satisfies the license by having a different name, and the wrapper is brand
> new code so not encumbered by someone else's copyright.
>
LPPL does
> I did not see any statement to this effect in the LPPL draft that was
> posted here:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg7.html
>
> I would love to hear that I had completely missed it, or that you've
> changed the draft to include such a statement.
My un
> Additionally, there is the question
> of defining "non-functional" data; some kinds of data, such as fonts,
> have functional impact
for a system like latex the fonts (or at least their metrics) have as
much impact as the rest of the system. Modifying the font metrics is
even more likely to cha
> That's not true. He hasn't registered a trademark on the name, I
> believe. So the most the license can do is prohibit you from calling
> a *derivative work* of Knuth's cmr10 file cmr10.tfm.
er yes that's the usual rider. Although it's not clear to me that you
can do that and still use it wit
> Let's take a look at it from a different perspective. What happens when
> someone does something like this in their LaTeX document?
> \usepackage{article}
> (Sorry if I screwed that up; I'm not a regular LaTeX user.)
(yes you did, but you're forgiven:-)
> If the license prevents us from modi
> Several people in this thread have already quoted several possibilities
> where LaTeX could be the vector of a security problem. If you're going
> to claim impossibility, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for
> proof.
Actually in the case of latex itself the proof is trivial to provide
> I am having trouble finding any file on my system (with tetex-base and
> tetex-extra installed) that is licensed in this way. What file did you
> pull this license from?
> You should note that tetex in Debian is split into free and non-free
> parts; it's entirely possible that the file you qu
> I also don't think that
> copyright law gives you the protection you're really looking for,
> because unless you have the legal budget of the Scientologists, a name
> cannot be protected under copyright law; and therefore, your license has
> no power over anyone who chooses to implement a macro
The freedom to create
these "personal versions" of software is the only protection that our
thousands or millions of users worldwide have against software authors
who are unresponsive, missing, or antagonistic. It is our insurance
policy that we will be free to continue to do what we be
> These simple conditions on the overall program name sound like they
> fall within the scope of DFSG #4. Restrictions on individual file
> names do not.
Those conditions [on cm fonts] _are_ at the level of individual file
names.
You can not call your font metric file cmr10.tfm unless it is b
I think Frank et al's concerns could be addressed fairly easily by
requiring distributors of modified versions of the entire LaTeX suite
to document the changes and include the location of that documentation
in the diagnostic output of latex, and requiring distributors of
modified versio
distribution packaging files and "wrapper"
scripts etc. But not the files that are so packaged. tetex includes
verbatim copies of
tex
the computer modern fonts
latex
Each of those components has a name-if-change distribution condition.
David Carlisle
___
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 10:48:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:23:14PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > > TeX people are from a different culture. TeX is not going to evolve.
> > > It is frozen. As Knuth said, "These fonts are never going to change
> > > again"
> Try this:
Thanks. Paragraph has been reworded as suggested.
David
You> reasonable comment on LPPL draft
Me> rather ungracious response:-)
Sorry it had been a long day... I have passed your suggested wording
round the other latex develpoers, with a suggestion that we might
consider using that.
In general though I really don't want to change anything very much.
>
>
> ensure that the original names are never used. This is impossible.
>
since you added a CC to a debian list, I assume that you know of the following:
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict
source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if
> I see no way to comply with this. How can I possibly guarantee that
> someone downstream from me will not change the name back?
This is not a new clause, it has been the standard latex conditions for
some years.
Unlike GPL software which forces derivatives to be under exactly GPL,
The LPPL is
55 matches
Mail list logo
