> 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
__
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still, we also have this problem with other non-copyleft licenses, such
> as BSD. I believe there were some non-free files in XFree86 at one
> point, for example, which had to be removed from our tarball.
Debian still only has to review licenses. It does
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> > I concur with the FSF's judgment, BTW--because of the existence of the
> > filename mapping feature, the hurdle of renaming files (while
> > exceedingly obnoxious) is not so high that it renders the pac
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 13:46, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We already have to vet upstream whenever they release new versions of
> > software. For example, the Python license changed after 1.5.2 to become
> > incompatible with the GPL; we skipped Python 1.6 and
David + Jeff
> > 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
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:06, Walter Landry wrote:
> > But what if latex evolved to the point where there is a cascade of
> > dependencies? Is Debian going to have to monitor what the LaTeX
> > people do, just to make sure that they don't make it too hard t
> 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
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 07:29, David Carlisle wrote:
> In the case of security it is worth saying again that this
>
> > Security is only one of many good reasons to change LaTeX, and it's
> > certainly a valid one, even for LaTeX. The lack of security problems in
> > LaTeX is possible a happy accid
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 03:13, Javier Bezos wrote:
>
> Let's suppose now that you may modify files without changing
> filenames. I edit article.sty, but it so happens that there are
> some packages (which I'm not aware of) which rely in the
> exact behaviour of article.sty and I don't want to break
> 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
> OK, here's what I was thinking.
>
> Let's imagine something like LaTeX licensed under something like the
> LPPL, and let's also assume that I'm going to hack it.
>
> So, I edit "article.sty". OK, no problem; just rename it to
> "article-hacked.sty".
>
> Oops, now things aren't working right.
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:06, Walter Landry wrote:
> But what if latex evolved to the point where there is a cascade of
> dependencies? Is Debian going to have to monitor what the LaTeX
> people do, just to make sure that they don't make it too hard to
> modify? What if a third party modifies LaTe
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 17:24, William F Hammond wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Let's imagine something like LaTeX licensed under something like the
> > > LPPL, and let's also assume that I'm going to hack it.
> > >
> > > So, I
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 17:24, William F Hammond wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Let's imagine something like LaTeX licensed under something like the
> > LPPL, and let's also assume that I'm going to hack it.
> >
> > So, I edit "article.sty". OK, no problem; just rename it t
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't follow the allusion to cascading change requirements.
> >
> > Could someone pose a simple example? Or was the cascade a nightmare?
>
> OK, here's what I was thinking.
>
> Let's imagine something like LaTeX licensed under something like the
>
On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 11:01, William F Hammond wrote:
>
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who seems to be the Debian spokesman,
Uh, oh. Does this mean I get blamed for stuff now? :-)
> writes in debian-legal@lists.debian.org at 19 Jul 2002 16:09:59 -0500,
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-lega
---
Note to LATEX-L readers: it does indeed seem that Frank and David are
making progress in a reasonable negotiation at debian-legal towards a
reconciliation of LPPL and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
---
There is something I do not understand:
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who seems
> Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 02:07:05 +0200
> From: Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 5) -- that's a little tricky with that file as it is a boot-trapping TeX file
> in essentially every other tex/latex file the identification stuff is on
> top but when a kernel is made Tex starts
Mark Rafn writes:
> > > 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?
>
> On Fri, 19 Ju
> > 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?
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> Thi
Jeff Licquia writes:
> > Well, as you see, this community has its own way of modifying
> > programs. We have traditions that predate GPL, Linux and even C. We
> > are quite happy with the way the things are.
>
> I think this is the main issue. You have a tradition for allowing
> modificatio
On Fri, 2002-07-19 at 14:34, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 18 Jul 2002 18:30:19 -0500
> > 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 w
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 18 Jul 2002 18:30:19 -0500
>
> No, not at all. I think that your R3 right is the point of contention;
> we do not believe that the draft of the LPPL we've seen confers that
> right.
This is exactly the reason of this discussion.
I hope that th
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > R2. Change the appearance of all documents by (1) using instead of the
> > command "latex file" a command "modified-latex file" or (2)
> > passing the corresponding options to tex or (3) using my own
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 19:16, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > > Thanks, but no thanks. I do not want you to have this freedom. I do
> > > not want you to send me these "maybe altered" weights. I do not want
> > > you to be able to send them to anybody. I abhor the thoug
On 18 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Thanks, but no thanks. I do not want you to have this freedom. I do
> > not want you to send me these "maybe altered" weights. I do not want
> > you to be able to send them to anybody. I abhor the thought that my
> > business associates, colleagues or anybod
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 13:06, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> I think we finally got to understanding what is allowed and what is
> not in TeX and LaTeX licensing -- or at least in the licenses
> intentions.
>
> Right now I as an end user and developer have the following rights:
>
> R1. Change the appear
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> Right now I as an end user and developer have the following rights:
>
> R1. Change the appearance of any document I got by adding the line
> inputting my set of macros to the document.
This was never in contention, and is irrelevant to the freedom
* Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020718 20:07]:
> Let me tell yuo this way. I am FOR the freedom of speech. However, I
> am against the freedom of my grocer to call a 950g weight "a
> kilogram".
And I am for the right to call a 1000g a kilogram, whatever somebody
else say it is.
Though ther
29 matches
Mail list logo
