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:

Barbara Beeton <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:02:51 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (82 lines)

claire connelly suggests, with respect to the lppl permitting
substitution of a new maintainer for one who has "disappeared",

    If what we're concerned about here is someone ``hijacking'' a
    particular package, then it might make more sense to define some
    restrictions on uploading to CTAN and leaving the license such
    that anyone can modify the package and make it available somewhere
    else.

no, please, no.
anyone *can* now modify a package as long as they change the
name.  the purpose of the restriction is to guarantee
reproducibility.

the ams already struggles with material submitted by authors
that uses old versions of "standard" packages.  it adds a great
deal of time and cost to producing our publications.  but at
least we are generally certain that no one has made unexpected
changes, and can usually trace through the history to see what
might be causing problems.

if we can't be sure that authors are using standard (even if
obsolete) versions of packages, that will only increase our
cost and headaches.

if file names aren't changed when a modified file is installed
on a shared system (as are the norm at many universities), most
users won't even know they're not using the standard version.

    CTAN could be (and is, I thought) regarded as the ``official
    repository'' of TeX/LaTeX packages, and might require a higher
    standard of proof before allowing someone other than the original
    author to upload a changed version of a package.  [...]

yes, we regard ctan as the trusted source for packages, but if
someone already has a particular package available locally,
that person isn't going to go to ctan to get a new copy.

    That way the LPPL could be a very free license while still
    preserving an official TeX source tree with a significant level of
    sanity checking.  ...

not enough sanity, unfortunately.

    ...  If the changes were too great to allow complete
    backwards compatibility, the CTAN maintainers could enforce a name
    change on the package (while at the same time recommending the
    newer package with a note in the CTAN Catalogue or similar).

the ctan maintainers don't have time to do this level of
chacking.  i suspect they do make a cursory check on the
"ownership" of a package before posting, but actually testing
it is out of the question.  the problem of "disappearing"
authors is real (though not always their fault), and i'd love
to see something in the license to get around the problem.
but opening things up so that changes can be made to copies
not on ctan isn't the answer.

    I don't think that the license has to assume that anyone making
    changes is up to no good and restrict people's ability to make
    those changes or to make those changes available in some form.  At
    the moment, the LPPL doesn't prevent an original author from
    making significant changes to their package that break backwards
    compatibility or even completely change its functionality.

i don't think there *is* any assumption that someone making
changes is up to no good.  i think that reproducibility is
the only important assumption in this regard.  if the original
author does make incompatible changes, then s/he will be faced
with deserved slings and arrows.

    On a related note, if CTAN, the LaTeX Project, TUG, or one of the
    European user groups could provide the resources for a centralized
    bug-tracking system that all CTAN authors could use, such a system
    could be a very valuable way to keep track of problems, fixes, and
    even the activity and availability of authors.  (I'm thinking, of
    course, of Debian's BTS (bugs.debian.org), which tracks an
    enormous amount of information without being especially
    complicated.)

this is a good idea.
                                                        -- bb

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