Mon, 1 Jul 2002 23:08:39 +0200
Markus Kohm wrote:
> Am Montag, 1. Juli 2002 20:30 hast du geschrieben:
> > But in fact in most situations this isn't what the authors of packages
> > would like to have. they would like to have the package live on after they
> > stopped using latex or being able to maintain it.
> To make this possible we don't need a change of lppl. If the author wants to
> stop maintaining a package and wants to allow someone else to maintain it, he
> simply can add something like
the issue are not the authors who actively seek somebody to carry the torch,
but simply those who have written something during their studend days, or God
knows when and simply changed communities, having forgotten all about it.
if you are able to track them, they usually say, go ahead, ...., but the
problem is that they do not forsee their vanishing from the scene.
just look at the many packages around on ctan with copyright notices of some
sort (prior to lppl) that are "authorless" by now.
> BTW: I never used the term "or (at your option) any later version" at the
> license part of my packages, because I fear such surprising new paragraphs at
that part is straight from GPL :-)
I really don't want to put surprises into LPPL which is why i want this
discussion. my aim for LPPL is to reflect what the LaTeX community in its
majority wants (in spirit not so much in actual legal terms, that is a side