Wed, 3 Jul 2002 20:10:10 +0200
Markus Kohm wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 2. Juli 2002 19:46 hast du geschrieben:
> > but it is rather
> > counterproductive unless the original author really does wish this. And i
> > think the general feeling (and that is why Donald brought this up) is that
> > in most cases the original authors would be quite happy to see their
> > packages maintained after they stop,
> So there are authors with two different interests.
most likely there are, though I know only of one person who explicitly
requested hs work to stay frozen once he is unable to maintain it (DEK with
TeX going to version \pi upon his death)
but to account for something like that i suggested the status "frozen" (though
that isn't really the right name, anybody else can think of a better name?
--- i toyed below with "author-maintained" but that isn't good either ...)
> Maybe you should add also
> an example how to declare The Programm to be lppl but not allow change of
> maintainer, something like:
could do. Though I would probably go for
% This program may be distributed and/or modified under the
% conditions of the LaTeX Project Public License, either version 1.3
% of this license or (at your option) any later version.
% The latest version of this license is in
% and version 1.3 or later is part of all distributions of LaTeX
% version 2002/06/01 or later.
% This program has the LPPL maintenance status "maintained".
% This program consists of the files pig.dtx and pig.ins
% and the derived file pig.sty.
To prevent the Maintenance section of LPPL to apply, you could change
"maintained" above into "author-maintained". Or if you seek for
somebody to take over maintenance you may change that to "unmaintained".
> And I think, you should tell about the new conditions at the LaTeX news.
of course and very prominently