Unidentified subject!

2002-07-16 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:59:13 +0100 > From: David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > if that were the case you would presumably remove TeX and the TeX > fonts from Debian as well. In that case the licence on LaTeX would > be moot as without TeX you can't use LaTeX whatever the licence.

User's thoughts about LPPL

2002-07-16 Thread Boris Veytsman
Greetings: I apologize for butting in in the ongoing discussion. Moreover, I am neither a lawyer nor a LaTeX3 team member (a couple of my programs are in the distribution, both under GPL and LPPL). Nevertheless I hope that my thoughts might be of use. I am a Debian and LaTeX user, so the present

Re: User's thoughts about LPPL

2002-07-16 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:18:02 -0500 > From: Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I don't think anyone here has a problem with a license that says "If > your LaTeX doesn't pass such and such a validation suite, you can't > call it LaTeX, but you can do whatever else you want to do with it." >

Re: Motivations; proposed alternative license

2002-07-16 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:28:10 -0700 (PDT) > From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Now you seem to be saying that there are so many ways to modify Latex > that I would never need to change article.cls. What if article.cls is > itself broken? Why can't I fix it and distribute that fix? >

Re: User's thoughts about LPPL

2002-07-16 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 03:41:42 +0300 > From: Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 07:52:09PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote: > >B. The *name* TeX is reserved for Knuth's program. If you program > >is called TeX, it must sa

Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

2002-07-16 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:46:53 -0500 > From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You seem at least as ignorant of Linux kernel development as you accuse > Debian developers of being with respect to TeX. > I am afraid the ignorance is truly mutual. I was amused by the suggestion that a L

Re: Motivations; proposed alternative license

2002-07-16 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:48:28 -0500 > From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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

Re: Motivations; proposed alternative license

2002-07-16 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 16 Jul 2002 23:08:59 -0500 > > The King James Bible is in the public domain, so we are allowed to > modify it all we want. > Except in Great Britain, where it is copyrighted by the crown -- Good luck -Boris "Nominal fee". What an ugly senten

Re: spokesman (was Re: User's thoughts about LPPL)

2002-07-17 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 17 Jul 2002 02:02:25 -0500 > > One possible important difference: there is, I would imagine, a much > higher degree of consensus about the Debian Social Contract and DFSG > within Debian than I expect there is in the LaTeX user community over > li

Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

2002-07-17 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:42:23 -0500 > From: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > By the way I hope Debian developers do NOT reserve the right to change > > King James Version? > > How do you think the world got the Revised Standard Version? The importance > of the ability to copy and mo

Standartization and TeX

2002-07-17 Thread Boris Veytsman
I apologize for being so prolific writer on this list. Still, I'd like to clear an important point. When we talked about LaTeX being both a program and a language standard, some Debian people told us that this situation is the same as with Perl, Python, Ruby etc. I think there is a big difference

Re: Standartization and TeX

2002-07-17 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:47:37 -0500 > From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 10:27:55AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote: > > However, I agree with David Carlisle, that this discussion is > > moot. The present LPPL conforms to the present D

Re: Hypothetical LaTeX security holes

2002-07-17 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:36:46 -0700 (PDT) > From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > In order to be free, it must allow exactly what LPPL seems designed to > prevent. A Debian user can take LaTeX, make it behave differently than > the original, (including producing different output), and dist

Re: Hypothetical LaTeX security holes

2002-07-17 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 17 Jul 2002 15:26:25 -0500 > > > Absolutely nothing in the currently used LPPL prevents you from > > creating your version of LaTeX, call it latex-improved, and invoke it > > by a command > > > > latex-improved file.foo > > Absolutely nothing in

Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

2002-07-17 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:55:42 +0100 > From: Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > (1) The intersection of those interested in LaTeX > and those seriously interested in Debian is almost empty, I imagine. > I would have said it was empty, > except that Frank Mittelbach seems to belong to both

Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

2002-07-17 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:25:26 -0700 (PDT) > From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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. I am afraid you do not understand

Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

2002-07-17 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 03:33:57 +0200 > From: Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote: > > > Note that you do not need to this if you want to change latex > > behavior. Continuing the analogy, you do have an analog of LD_P

Re: User's thoughts about LPPL

2002-07-18 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 04:15:20 -0400 > From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > If the core can be changed in any way without changing it directly, > then you can break output exactly as well by this mechanism as you > could by editing it directly. > No, because to change the core you nee

Re: spokesman (was Re: User's thoughts about LPPL)

2002-07-18 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:20:32 -0400 > > The TeX license is OK because it mandates what we call the program, > but does not say anything about the API. Even if the binary is called > uglytex, it's still easy for me to run it over .tex files. If those >

LaTeX & DFSG

2002-07-18 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:43:15 -0400 > From: Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I have always appreciated the fact that you could run latex on 10 > year-old sources and get the same output, but I have also come to > appreciate the rights granted by DFSG-compliant software. > I think

Re: User's thoughts about LPPL

2002-07-19 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:12:44 -0400 > From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:55:43PM +0200, Javier Bezos wrote: > > >> but the documents created using that distribution. If I get a > > >> document by "John Smith" (somehow), how can I see if _his_ > > >> system

Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

2002-07-19 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:16:43 +0200 > From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I think noone wants to change the (La)TeX-Kernel, noone want do make > .tex-file iterchange impossible. We all want the LaTeX to be the > usefull crossplattform tool that it is. > > But though we do not wa

Re: LaTeX & DFSG

2002-07-19 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: LaTeX & DFSG

2002-07-19 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

2002-07-19 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:45:35 +1200 > From: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Under the LPPL we are not allowed to fix the engine either; we have to wait > for D. E. Knuth to do it. Which I'm sure he would do, unless he happened > to have been run over by a bus that morning (unlikely, as

Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

2002-07-19 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:38:03 -0400 > From: Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > LaTeX. Actually, there ARE non-TeX programs that use LaTeX as macro > packages. The most popular among such programs is pdftex. I use pdftex > almost as often as tex. When pdftex is called

Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

2002-07-19 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:24:24 -0500 > From: Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > How does the LPPL actually prevent a distributor from FUBARing their > distribution of LaTeX? The fact is people regularly ignore licenses, > copyrights, patents and trademarks (if this weren't the case, there

Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

2002-07-19 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:19:07 -0500 > From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 1) Names and titles are not copyrightable. If you want intellectual > property protection in a name, you need a trade mark, service mark, > certification mark, or similar instrument. > I afraid this is not

Re: LaTeX & DFSG

2002-07-19 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

2002-07-21 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 20 Jul 2002 20:15:30 +0200 > > > - to fork you have to rename every package under LPPL > > > all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by now) > > It has been *asserted* over and over again that this is wrong, but > that assertati

Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

2002-07-21 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 20 Jul 2002 23:32:48 +0200 > > I still think it can be viewed as excessive. Let me explain. > > Imagine that I want to create a typesetting system that behaves just > like LaTeX on all input files, except that input files that say > something

Re: A few more LPPL concerns

2002-07-21 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:30:47 -0700 (PDT) > From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Note that in the above, `distribution' of a file means making the file > > available to others by any means. This includes, for instance, > > installing the file on any machine in such a way that the file

Re: defining "distribution" (Re: A few more LPPL concerns)

2002-07-21 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT) > From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Suppose I take a GPL'ed program, change it and put the closed version > > (sans sources) on my own machine. I did not violate GPL yet. Now > > suppose that I make the drive NFS-exportable and encourage my pa

Re: defining "distribution" (Re: A few more LPPL concerns)

2002-07-21 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 21 Jul 2002 18:07:50 -0500 > > On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:49, Boris Veytsman wrote: > > This is the root of our disagreement. I think that a sysadmin that put > > a changed copy of latex.fmt in the $TEXFORMATS directo

Re: defining "distribution" (Re: A few more LPPL concerns)

2002-07-21 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 21 Jul 2002 20:34:32 -0500 > You're right, and there may be software you can't install on your AFS > drive in this instance, because you're "distributing" software to those > thousand computers. This is irrespective of whether any of those > thousa

Re: defining "distribution" (Re: A few more LPPL concerns)

2002-07-21 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 21 Jul 2002 22:59:26 -0500 > > It's crucial to your point, therefore, that there not be a distinction > between running the program from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin. I > think we've shown that this isn't the case, since a sysadmin does not

Re: A few more LPPL concerns

2002-07-21 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:35:42 +1200 > From: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Take my company. There are 4 of us working there. I'm quite likely to want > to make a small modification to some part of LaTeX to make it behave how I > want it to. It's been a long time since I used LaTeX heav

Re: A few more LPPL concerns

2002-07-22 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 22 Jul 2002 00:23:22 -0500 > > On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:43, Boris Veytsman wrote: > > > From: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > Take my company. There are 4 of us work

Re: defining "distribution" (Re: A few more LPPL concerns)

2002-07-22 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 22 Jul 2002 00:47:39 -0500 > > On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote: > > Exactly. I really do not see the difference between running a program > > from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin/. What is the

Re: User's thoughts about LPPL

2002-07-22 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:27:04 -0700 > > David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Prior to the latex2e licence (which from which LPPL was derived) > > "latex" could be (and often was) locally modified and re-distributed. > > It got so bad by

Re: A few more LPPL concerns

2002-07-22 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:28:38 -0700 > > I think that ultimately it is the University and its users who are > best place to make that decision, and not the LaTeX mafia. > I think that LaTeX users community is pretty happy with the way the things a

Re: Towards a new LPPL draft

2002-07-22 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:31:54 +0200 > From: Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To go forward I propose > > A) I would like you to come to a conclusion on (1) assuming the above Axiom > The question is, who should say "yes" and "no"? Sorry for being ignorant about the rules -- but i

Re: User's thoughts about LPPL

2002-07-22 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 22 Jul 2002 15:02:28 -0500 > > > Would it really contradict your professed goals to have three > LaTeX-alike systems floating around, one named LaTeX, one named FooTeX, > and one named BarTeX? > Of course not. Actually there are several systems

Re: Towards a new LPPL draft

2002-07-23 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 23 Jul 2002 10:31:57 -0500 > > Would it work for you to require the following? > > - if the whole is named "LaTeX", every changed file must be renamed > > - if the whole is named something else, files may be changed without > renaming > What

Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)

2002-07-24 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:31:13 -0700 (PDT) > From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote: > > > The question here is how to guarantee that a changed overcite.sty > > > (without renaming) will not be used with pristine LaTeX, right? > > This

Re: Encoding the name in the file contents

2002-07-24 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:56:19 -0700 (PDT) > From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So let me get this straight. Pristine LaTeX would have, within it, a > mechanism for checking whether a particular file is "blessed" by the > LaTeX project. Ideally, it could check digital signatures. m

Re: Encoding the name in the file contents

2002-07-24 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:53:23 +0200 > From: Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > So it is NOT me or David or anybody else from The LaTeX Team that controls an > this: the terms of LPPL control it as any work under LPPL will be on a LaTeX > system (but not on a fork on) load the sameset of

Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)

2002-07-24 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT) > From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote: > > Perhaps because LaTeX people want to give other people (basically > > themselves) a couple of other rights, namely: > > &g

Re: Encoding the name in the file contents

2002-07-24 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:58:13 -0700 (PDT) > From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I hate to disappoint you, but this is much more work than you think. > > > > LaTeX is not a Linux project. It i

Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)

2002-07-24 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:42:34 -0700 (PDT) > From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > No, it's true of C as well. We wouldn't accept a Perl, for instance, that > forbade incompatible changes to the API, even if it allowed addition of > keywords. It really is the case that we want to preserv

Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)

2002-07-24 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:42:34 -0700 (PDT) > From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > No, it's true of C as well. We wouldn't accept a Perl, for instance, that > forbade incompatible changes to the API, even if it allowed addition of > keywords. It really is the case that we want to preserv

Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)

2002-07-25 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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*

Re: Suggestion for dual-licensed LaTeX (was Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft))

2002-07-25 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: Suggestion for dual-licensed LaTeX (was Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft))

2002-07-25 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: Concluding the LPPL debate, try 2

2002-07-25 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: Suggestion for dual-licensed LaTeX (was Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft))

2002-07-25 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: Checksums (was: Encoding the name in the file contents)

2002-07-26 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 10:01:40 +0200 > From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_Schr=F6der?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 2002-07-25 16:46:57 -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > Um, no. In the case where package FOO needs package BAR, > > \NeedsTeXFormat has BAR tell FOO that BAR is a good version. Using > > I

Re: Concluding the LPPL debate, try 2

2002-07-26 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 26 Jul 2002 12:20:43 +0200 > > Erm .. the *current* LPPL you say, being LPPL version 1.2? I cannot > find any language in there that allows naming outside of the LaTeX > search path. There seems to be no exceptions to condition (3) about > not d

Re: Suggestion for dual-licensed LaTeX (was Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft))

2002-07-26 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 26 Jul 2002 13:15:44 +0200 > > Scripsit Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > If you create non-LaTeX, you can move files outside the tree, and > > then you are completely free to do whatever you wa

Re: Towards a new LPPL draft

2002-07-26 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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 being in > contravention of the comment at the top of plain.tex which says > >

Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)

2002-07-27 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 27 Jul 2002 09:50:54 -0700 > > If a site wants a variant of latex, and all the users at that site > know about it, and want it, and want it to be called latex, then why, > exactly, do you want to prohibit them this freedom? (Or want to >

Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)

2002-07-27 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 27 Jul 2002 10:00:12 -0700 > > However, more to the point, free software is about particular > freedoms. In the instant case, the freedom I'm asking about is a > freedom to modify and distribute the program, something that both the > DFSG

Re: Font license recommendation

2002-07-28 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:20:51 +0200 > From: Lars =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hellstr=F6m?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What license should I use if I want to make a _font_ free software? > > Originally I was thinking about the GPL, but then it occurred to me that > this could have unwanted contamination eff

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-05 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 01:54:02 -0500 > From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > These statements are in tension. If Professor Knuth asserts the latter, > he logically *cannot* be asserting the former. > > Knuth is asserting his copyright to impose the restrictions described > above; the

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-05 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:05:28 -0500 > From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You have an unhealthy obsession with filenames. A filename is no more Who is trying to be offensive now? Branden, cannot we make this a civil discussion, even given the fact we disagree? Believe me, I've led en

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-05 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 19:52:28 +0200 > From: Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > that remark with the historical context is not clear to me as the > names for the collective works have been trademarked (Computer > Modern not i think) http://www.yandy.com/cm.htm says: (TM) Computer Moder

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-05 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:07:45 -0500 > From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > It is *human* confusion that Knuth has sought to avoid, not confusion on > the part of computers. Strictly speaking, computers don't get confused. > They do what they're told, or throw an exception. > [...]

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-05 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 05 Aug 2002 13:01:07 -0700 > > Now, you treat this is as if there are merely differing > interpretations of DFSG-4. But there are not. The only interpretors > of DFSG-4 are the Debian Project. Nobody else. We don't make any > kind of pr

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-05 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 05 Aug 2002 13:45:17 -0700 > > You can't change tex.web, but you can do *anything* you like to it, as > long as you do so via patch files. And in Knuth's wacked out language > (WEB), he even has a decent automatic patch file mechanism *bui

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-06 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 05 Aug 2002 21:41:27 -0700 > > But can I modify the behavior of any part of LaTeX, including what > happens when I load article.sty? > Can you modify plain.tex? > And am I allowed to do that by taking the original article.sty and > using

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-06 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:08:52 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > > But can I modify the behavior of any part of LaTeX, including what > > happens when I load article.sty? > > Yes. But in order to do so, you either have to: > 1) request

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-06 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:41:45 -0500 > From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Well, as you noted, the TM (trademark) isn't Knuth's. The trademarks > belong to the AMS and Addison-Wesley. (Though I would hope they have > taken the time to consult with Knuth so as to not enforce the tra

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-06 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 05 Aug 2002 19:46:09 -0700 > > You cannot modify tex.web at all, but you are free to patch it with > what you want and distribute the results, including binaries made from > it. This is exactly the sort of thing that DFSG 4 had in mind, >

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-06 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:09:17 +0100 > From: Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Since it is almost certainly not possible to trademark a filename > anyway, the solution seems fairly clear. We find a free font to > replace this one with, and we drop it in place as cmr10.mf, excising > the o

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-06 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:16:08 -0500 > From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Are you asking Debian to regard the following license as DFSG-free? > > Copyright 1996-2002 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person >

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-06 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 06 Aug 2002 13:54:08 -0700 > > Can you modify plain.tex? > > Yes, if I do so by patches. I can do the following: > > Rename plain.tex to origplain.tex. > > Create a new plain.tex that loads origplain.tex and then hacks the > environment

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-07 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:40:14 +0100 > From: Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >=20 > > I am afraid you cannot do this: since TeX is trademarked, you cannot > > substitute a new font for it without violating trademark.=20 > > So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added t

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-07 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:43:37 -0400 > From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:40:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the > > description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant. > > Which has been don

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-07 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 07 Aug 2002 15:34:43 -0700 > Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document > > exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installa

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-07 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 18:50:32 -0400 > From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > He said "the package name gets changed". The package name is "tetex", > not "tex", so that's been done. ("Package name" has a very specific > meaning in Debian, and there is no "tex" package in Debian.) The >

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-07 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 07 Aug 2002 17:41:44 -0700 > > Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > We already discussed this. Because this is the goal of TeX. That is > > why TeX uses scaled point for calculations. Th

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-08 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-08 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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 m

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-08 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-08 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-08 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-08 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-08 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-08 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-08 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-08 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-08 Thread Boris Veytsman
> 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

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-09 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:15:01 +0200 > From: Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Frank, thanks for a very lucid and thoughtful comment. It is very helpful. I must say, however, that I somewhat disagree with one of your points, namely: > > Thus our point is that building a distribution consi

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-09 Thread Boris Veytsman
First, three quotations: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 09 Aug 2002 19:01:06 -0700 > > This is a massively inconsistent sentence. But there is one and only > one way to make it consistent. The files are in the public > domain--fully, completely--and the rest of the s

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-09 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 09 Aug 2002 19:07:26 -0700 > > In fact, everyone does, in fact, modify TeX before installing it. > Nobody, in fact, installs an unmodified TeX. This is a central fact > massively ignored by so many that I have to say it in each post, > ra

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-10 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:54:19 +0300 > From: Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Are you talking about a compilation copyright here? Those are tricky > beasts. I've never before seen a compilation copyright with a license > that allows modification, and I wonder how it would work. >

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-10 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:35:50 -0400 > From: Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > That is silly. You can definitely modify the behaviour of the C > compiler through the C preprocessor. You can do it in C++ with > templates. Perl allows you to fiddle with its symbol table (typeglobs) > so th

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

2002-08-10 Thread Boris Veytsman
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:53:58 -0400 > From: Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Would you consider libfoo-dev.deb to be free? > > Is this not what proprietary library vendors sell? They sell > shrink-wrapped libraries, with copyrighted headers that you may use but > must not modify. Th

Re: gnuplot license

2002-12-17 Thread Boris Veytsman
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 16 Dec 2002 22:08:07 -0800 > > I'm uncertain how gnuplot got its name...anyone know? > http://www.gnuplot.info/faq/ 1.2 How did it come about and why is it called gnuplot? The authors of gnuplot are: Thomas Williams, Colin Kell

Re: gnuplot license

2002-12-17 Thread Boris Veytsman
Sorry for replying to myself, but the following from the FAQ: > > Gnuplot is freeware in the sense that you don't have to pay for > it. However it is not freeware in the sense that you would be > allowed to distribute a modified version of your gnuplot > freely. Please read and ac

  1   2   >