LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
David Carlisle <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:59:13 +0100
text/plain (110 lines)
4) In practice, Debian recognizes "a different name or version number"
   to refer *works*, not filenames.  Permission to mandate or forbid the
   renaming of files is not explicitly granted here, and would not make
   sense from a technological perspective (what to do about primitive
   filesystems with length limitations on filenames, which mandate
   version information in the filename itself, are not case-sensitive,
   or otherwise restrict us from the liberties we are accustomed to
   enjoying on modern Unix filesystems?).  Surely you'd agree that a
   work retains its identity regardless of its title or what means are
   used to identify it.  I can't digitally edit a Disney movie to
   replace the title with my own and thus ignore Disney's copyright on
   the movie.

This misses the point that in latex filenames are part of the end-user


loads "longtable.sty" which is part of the core latex distribution.
Under msdos this gets stored in all sorts of ways longtabl.sty lontable.sty
longtab~1.sty, whatever, But the underlying TeX system's file handling calls
just have to do the mapping. TeX's file handling is always system dependent
and maps the user syntax to whatever it is (even flat extensionless case
insenstitive file systems on mainframes etc). LaTeX doesn't "know" of this
mapping, it happens at the TeX level.
Storing longtable.sty on a filesystem that doesn't
support 8 letter names isn't considered renaming (or shouldn't be) if the
TeX system
will locate the file with the same \usepackage{longtable} command.

  No, I mean that it's not acceptable for the copyright holders of LaTeX
  to assert intellectual property rights in works created using LaTeX,
  such as masters' theses, conference proceedings, journal articles, or
  philosophical screeds.

Since there is nothing in LPPL or any other part of the latex distribution
should lead you to think this might be the case, why bring it up? Of course
not acceptable.

> Why would it be impossible to implement?  I can do it in the shell:


        if [ -e /usr/share/tex/MODIFIED ]; then
  BE =

and you are offering to port that shell script to every system that runs
latex? some of which, as you point out above may not have directory
at all, never mind implementations of /bin/sh.

What is the advantage to the end user of having a "latex" that outputs such
a command
as opposed to a different command altogenther.  Many users of latex never
see a command line (or the terminal output) latex runs behind the scenes as
a print engine from a front end editing tool. (not least, emacs).

    * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to
      your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
      precondition for this.
    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
      neighbor (freedom 2).
    * The freedom to improve the program, and release your
      improvements to the public, so that the whole community
      benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a
      precondition for this.

All those freedoms are preserved by the LPPL.
The issue of renaming is an issue but it does not relate to those core

  It seems to me like either there is some miscommunication here, or that
  you are not interested in the LPPL being a free software license.

LPPL is a free software licence. The issue is whether or not it conforms to
the DFSG.
Debian do not have a monopoly on the use of the word Free.  It doesn't
really help
if you use language like "not interested" when Frank has clearly indicated
virtually all the text of LPPL is under the knife and can be changed if it
help meet the letter of the DFSG. But it needs technical discussion of
points in the licence, not such broad generalisations.

  the subject of
  eliminating clause 4 from our guidelines has been raised before, and may
  come to a vote sometime this year.  Presumably, you will want the LPPL
  to be a DFSG-free license regardless of the outcome of such a vote.

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.