Enviado desde mi iPhone
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 13:26, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
>
> > Sure, that's fine. But the LPPL people might not like it, given their
> > weirdness.
>
> thanks a lot, if we are back to abuse then I guess that's about time to stop
Do not take the voice of one as the v
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Sure, that's fine. But the LPPL people might not like it, given their
> weirdness.
thanks a lot, if we are back to abuse then I guess that's about time to stop
happy easter to those who accept it from a weirdo but perhaps that makes it
suspicious
frank
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
> > 5a1 is not a free alternative. 5a2 approaches that, but it has to
> > cover _every_ occasion where 5a1 fails, not just most of them.
>
> I don't think it is acceptable that you take a list of "or"s, judge
> each of them ind
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>
>> c. The Current Maintainer may have included an offering of technical
>>support for his work, labelled "Support Information". You must
>>remove any such offerings, though you may add your o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> c. The Current Maintainer may have included an offering of technical
>support for his work, labelled "Support Information". You must
>remove any such offerings, though you may add your own. If there
>is other information regarding suppor
Walter Landry writes:
> 5a1 is not a free alternative. 5a2 approaches that, but it has to
> cover _every_ occasion where 5a1 fails, not just most of them.
I don't think it is acceptable that you take a list of "or"s, judge each of
them individually and conclude that each of them is not 100% the
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
> > Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Note that above we also addressed the concern by (I think Walter)
> > > concerning 5a2 so that it now only requires run-time identification
> > > if the original used runtim
Walter Landry writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that above we also addressed the concern by (I think Walter)
> > concerning 5a2 so that it now only requires run-time identification
> > if the original used runtime identification
>
> Thank you. It is extremely cl
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that above we also addressed the concern by (I think Walter)
> concerning 5a2 so that it now only requires run-time identification
> if the original used runtime identification
Thank you. It is extremely close. It doesn't quite allow me to take
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
>> > addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
>> > Maintainer's addresses in any way.
>>
>> Thi
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 10:53:30AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
> > > addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
> > > Maintainer's addresse
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
> > addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
> > Maintainer's addresses in any way.
>
> This is somewhat new ground for a DFSG-free license. Is it *
Branden Robinson writes:
> > > Are you gravely opposed to external changelogs, as might be generated
> > > by, say, cvs2cl -- even if those changelogs have to be distributed along
> > > with the modified files of the Derived Work?
> >
> > yes, we are. This is not how the LaTeX world works
> Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > I'm close on this one. "does not identify itself as unmodified in any
> > > > way" is harder for me to understand than "identifies itself as
> > > > modified".
>
> > > It is just a little less restrictive. Instead of requiring people to
> > > ma
Branden Robinson writes:
> > > > c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
> > > > addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
> > > > Maintainer's addresses in any way.
> > >
> > > This is somewhat new ground for a DFSG-free license
On 2003-04-16 14:28:44 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I understand the rationale. I'm concerned about the wording. Would the
> following violate 5(c)?
>
> % LaTeX-Foobar 1.2.9, copyright 2001--2003 John A. Doe
> %
> % Please report errors to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> %
> % MODIFIED BY Jack Smith
Branden Robinson writes:
> > > > c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
> > > > addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
> > > > Maintainer's addresses in any way.
> > >
> > > This is somewhat new ground for a DFSG-free license. Is
Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm close on this one. "does not identify itself as unmodified in any
> > > way" is harder for me to understand than "identifies itself as modified".
> > It is just a little less restrictive. Instead of requi
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 10:29:44PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
> > Please make restrictions attach to distributions of modification, not
> > the act of modifying in and of itself.
>
> we think it is neither of users nor of people actively supporting (read: user
> su
Frank Mittelbach writes:
> we think it is neither of users nor of people actively supporting (read:
> user support) and maintaining a large software system, that modification is
> done without minimal preparation for a potential distribution (because
ooops. what was that? i meant something lik
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:14:55PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > 5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify
> > your copy of The Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on The Work,
> > as long as the following conditions are met:
>
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:14:55PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> 5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify
> your copy of The Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on The Work,
> as long as the following conditions are met:
Please make restrictions attach to distr
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes in reply to Mark Rafn:
> > > > - 5b. Mark, you were nervous about this, but I don't see an
> > > > alternative or clarification in the discussion. Are you satisfied, or
> > > > is there still some work to do?
> > >
> > > I
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> 5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify
> your copy of The Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on The Work,
> as long as the following conditions are met:
>
> a. You must ensure that each modified file of the Deri
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > I'm close on this one. "does not identify itself as unmodified in any
> > way" is harder for me to understand than "identifies itself as modified".
>
> Negative is better. Positive, to me, means "you must write this code,
> here" as opposed to "what
> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm close on this one. "does not identify itself as unmodified in any
> > way" is harder for me to understand than "identifies itself as modified".
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Walter Landry wrote:
> It is just a little less restrictive. Instead of requiring
I think i answered about all of the points raised a minute ago
Jeff Licquia writes:
> > Does "This is LaTeX-format, unmodified" followed a few lines later by
> > "this is foo, modified by someguy" qualify? As written, I'd think this
> > infringes.
>
> I would say this doesn't (or should
Walter Landry writes in reply to Mark Rafn:
> > On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >
> > > - 5.a.2. That's the Clause of Contention, so read it carefully. I
> > > seem to have at least some consensus on it, judging from the feedback so
> > > far; its provenance can be seen in this
On Sun, 2003-04-13 at 14:33, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > - 5.a.2. That's the Clause of Contention, so read it carefully. I
> > seem to have at least some consensus on it, judging from the feedback so
> > far; its provenance can be seen in this message and t
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > - 5.a.2. That's the Clause of Contention, so read it carefully. I
> > seem to have at least some consensus on it, judging from the feedback so
> > far; its provenance can be seen in this message and the follow
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> - 5.a.2. That's the Clause of Contention, so read it carefully. I
> seem to have at least some consensus on it, judging from the feedback so
> far; its provenance can be seen in this message and the follow-ups:
I'm close on this one. "does not identi
Things appear to have been quiet, which I'm taking as a good sign. So,
I've read over the thread, gathered the areas of apparent consensus, and
changed the license.
At some point, we have to be happy with what we have or declare defeat.
It's my understanding that the changes in this draft will a
33 matches
Mail list logo
