LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  July 2002

LATEX-L July 2002

Subject:

Re: Suggested changes to LPPL

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:49:13 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (126 lines)

Claire,

 > What I'm trying to point out, though, is that there are some
 > people (*not me*) in the Debian Project who believe that there are
 > aspects of the LPPL that conflict with the Debian Free Software
 > Guidelines.

picking up on the discussion started elsewhere: we know that but, until know we
never been explicitly told what these conflicts are and/or whether this is a
majority or minority opinion etc. Neither by the Debian Project nor by the OSI
people. An if you look at the link passed around lately

<http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:1961:200005:bbblnpbacbllnbmdlfgk#b>

you see that they never even got very far in discussing the license or
forming an opinion (and the information that was passed back to us was even
less). So yes we care but you need something to discuss beyond "there are some
people with feelings". a) those feelings need to go into a similar direction
or else you will be changing things forever without any change in status and
b) they need to be formulated to be able to act upon or discuss them at least.

 > Assuming that you care about DFSG status (and
 > therefore about LaTeX being distributable by Debian and other
 > projects that use the DFSG as a guide -- the Open Source
 > Initiative's criteria are essentially identical to the DFSG),
 > understanding the conflicts and considering alternatives is
 > important.

yes, which is why this is all so frustating, see how careful you are with the wording:
 >
 > Once again, the main concerns appear to be

"appears to be" or "is"? is this the position of the Debian Project or the
position of individuals etc?

anyway, let's assume for the moment these "are" the concerns ...

 >    1. The restriction on modifying files without changing their
 >       names, even if those files will never be distributed

which restriction are you talking about? I'm not aware of any.
do you mean

    A Recommendation on Modification Without Distribution
    -----------------------------------------------------

that does not contain any restrictions (it is clearly labeled a recommendation)

 >    2. The requirement to distribute modified (and renamed) files
 >       with a complete set of the unmodified versions of those
 >       files

As stated above there exist no such requirement either. The license says on
this point:

  8. You must do either (A) or (B):

       (A) distribute a copy of The Program (that is, a complete,
           unmodified copy of The Program) together with the modified
           file; if your distribution of the modified file is made by
           offering access to copy the modified file from a designated
           place, then offering equivalent access to copy The Program
           from the same place meets this condition, even though third
           parties are not compelled to copy The Program along with the
           modified file;

       (B) provide to those who receive the modified file information
           that is sufficient for them to obtain a copy of The Program;
           for example, you may provide a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)
           for a site that you expect will provide them with a copy of
           The Program free of charge (either the version from which
           your modification is derived, or perhaps a later version).

ie all it "requires" is to point out in your modified source where to get the
original from, e.g. CTAN. Is that too much to require?
I'm happy to discuss the rationale behind it, it is the attempt to help the
user who gets crippled variants of The Program, to have at least a chance to
look at the original. And it dates back from the days where internet access
and search machines where less common, so it may not be necessary nowadays. On
the other hand i would like to see a case made why this is in conflict with
the DFSG.

In fact I have just (tried to) reread the DFSG very carefully and I wasn't
able to find any clause that would be in conflict with the LPPL but I would be
very much interested in being shown any such conflict.


 > There are additional quibbles about some perceived redundancy; the
 > precise wording of various phrases; and the placement of
 > punctuation that can subtly change the meaning of particular
 > clauses, as well, but I'll leave that to the people with those
 > concerns to articulate.

quibbles about placement of punctuation is something that as far as english is
concerned is a matter of debate between any two literate persons. I'm not at
all saying that the document is legally correct in its terms, but there is a
lot of difference between british english and amercian english and it wouldn't
surprise me if there aren't two lawyers that would have an heated argument on
any sentence within that license (or others).

On the other hand, I for my part, and most likely the rest of the LaTeX
Project team as well, would be very willing to get "knowledgeable" advice on
that level, though not necessarily by other layman (as the latter would
probably just mean changing from one version to the next).

in any case, that last set of described "quibbles" is good for nothing unless
it is accompanied by a thorough set of comments and reasonings (like Rod Dixon
in the link above started, though he never got got any far to make his
comments really useful)

 > I'm not the one making these judgements, and I don't necessarily
 > agree with them.  I'm simply passing them along so that you can
 > take them into consideration in order to ensure that they can pass
 > muster with organizations using the DFSG or DFSG-like criteria to
 > judge the ``freedom'' of licenses.

glad to. but my main request then is: please have such judgements made
precise, have Debian Project tell us where LPPL is in conflict with DFSG, or
the OSI people to tell us where LPPL is in conflcit with their guidelines.

When we submitted the license in 2000 they never came up with something
specific either that one could built upon (other than perhaps the problem I
tried to resolve when I started this thread --- though that wasn't explicitly
said either back then)

frank

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager