LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
From: Timothy Murphy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:08:44 +0100
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>; from [log in to unmask] on Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 10:14:30PM +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (27 lines)
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 10:14:30PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:

> approach as an option (i.e. to put LaTeX under GPL) that we came to the
> conclusion that it is not the right approach for software of a type like
> LaTeX.

The GPL/LaTeX issue was evidently settled long ago,
and I wouldn't like to re-open an old hornet's nest,
but I've seen you refer several times to the difference in kind or type
between LaTeX and GPL-ed programs.

I don't really see this difference.
If someone put out a new version of stdio.h ,
it seems to me it would cause exactly the same kind of chaos
as if they put out a new version of article.cls .
I've never come across rival versions of, say, Linux kernel files --
except in different versions of the kernel.

Does this danger actually arise in practice?


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
tel: 086-233 6090
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

ATOM RSS1 RSS2