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:

Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:30:17 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

Claire,

I think you are very mistaken about the purpose and reasoning behind LPPL.

 > 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.

LPPL does not try to prevent people from making changes or from benefitting
from progress. It offers a clear route for supporting change at any time (you
only have to change the name). Its fundamental goal, however is to preserve
the main feature of LaTeX: its universal exchangability of documents. Package
and class files are, if you will, part of the language of latex and therefore
at a given point in time should "ideally" be identical at all sites.

In this respect it is like a programming language: the programming language
may change from language version to language version (features may get added
or changed) but within one language release you can (again ideally) expect
that a source program written in that language will compile at any site that
uses this release of the language.

Same with latex, except that the changes (and more often the additions) to the
language are larger in numbers than with something like FORTRAN. What the
license tries to ensure is that something is not called FORTRAN77 but
FORTRAN2002 if its spec is changed.

 > 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.

There is no reason for LPPL to prevent that, just as it doesn't intend to
prevent development or improvement. It is true that if a package changes
significantly different releases of LaTeX may not compile documents in the
same way. But the most siginifcant part that LPPL tries to capture is still
valid: identical releases will give identical results and due to LPPL there
can only be one "current" release for a package with the name xxx.

A completely different situation would arise if packages would be distributed
under,say, GPL. Then it would be perfectly permissible to locally enhance
files for one or the other reason (with good or without good reason is
irrelevant here) and thus resulting in documents behaving differently on
different sites even if both sites started from the same files --- and in many
cases without the author of a document having a chance (other than using her
own implementation on her own pc).

[ Just assume that a maintainer of a university site would change the number
of lines in the article class a number of times because he or she is reading
different books on typography (with different suggestions) and she gradually
learns that the defaults in that class are really bad (which they are to some
extend but that history).  --- this may sound like a strange scenario, but it
isn't really. At the end of LaTeX209 half the sites in Europe couldn't
exchanges files between each other because all had their local "corrections"
without labeling them as such. ]

Again: LPPL does not prevent such changes, corrections, enhancements! It only
channels them by requesting a change in name to ensure the above.

It is true that we (the project team) keep the LaTeX kernel very closely
garded with respect to backward and forward compatibility (meaning adding new
features in the kernel, which is too a sort of incompatibility as it means
that using this feature results in failure on older releases) --- this is done
to keep the core stable and help portability through different releases of
LaTeX. However, this does not follow from applying LPPL at all, and we think
that anything outside the core does not and should not necessarily follow this
principle (even if it makes life for organisations like the AMS slightly more
difficult).

Now coming back to the earlier question:

 > Do we really need to have a time limit built into the license?
 >
 > 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.

all my attempts where not done to prevent hijacking but rather to give an
agreed way to take a package further when the original author is no longer
able/interested in developing/maintaining it. Otherwise a package under LPPL
has indeed the danger that one has to unnecessarily start from a new name just
to comply to the license.

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. by defining a suitable process for
this case and allowing the authors to agree to this process beforehand (by
using the license) the situation improved (imho) without losing the major goal
for LPPL out of sight.



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