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: Motivations; proposed alternative license (was Re: LaTeX PublicProject License, Version 1.3 (DRAFT))

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 16 Jul 2002 00:32:50 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (242 lines)

Jeff,

 > I'm glad to see you here, Frank.  Please forward my responses as you
 > deem appropriate to latex-l.

i try to do that, though most people probably don't really care either way as
long as things work as desired :-)

it is getting late (here --- for me at least) and I will be unable to
substantially answer any of the remaining or earlier posts nonight and perhaps
not even tomorrow. i have started to answer your first post (perhaps that goes
out tonight though)

so on this one (thank you for it) only two or three small bits

 > But what happens if "article" itself is broken?  Supposed that LaTeX
 > releases with a bug that causes Debian boxes (and just Debian boxes) to
 > be unable to process "article" documents.  Can a non-blessed person go
 > in and fix problems with LaTeX, or do they have to go begging to you
 > guys before they are allowed to process articles correctly?

they can though they should not distribute it under the license

 > I don't mean to slam your release process or your QA; for all I know,
 > they're great.  But I don't have any guarantee of that.  You're human,
 > after all.  And even if you aren't, you're very likely to change the
 > membership of the core maintenance group.

 > In short, can you guarantee that you will never, never ever screw up?  I
 > don't think you can.

i'm human and yes we screw up

 > That's why we consider the right to modify the
 > base parts of the system to be so important to us.

you have that right, and i now see that it was a mistake to change in the
license the reference from cfgguide.tex to modguide.tex it should either refer
to both or perhaps modguide could do with some update

from cfg guide:

=========================================
\subsection{Examples}

Since we have been prompted, despite our misgivings, to document how
to do this by members of the League for Programming Freedom, it seems
appropriate to describe here a possible modification of \LaTeX{} to
produce a system called fsf\TeX.

To do this, you should create a file called \texttt{fsftex.tex} and
then run it using \iniTeX{} and the standard \LaTeX{} format.

The contents of the file \texttt{fsftex.tex} should be as shown on
page \pageref{fsfcode}.  The particular changes to the \LaTeX{} kernel
that you wish to make need to be added to the file at the position
indicated.  You can also choose the extensions you want to use for the
class and package files in your system.

\newpage
\label{fsfcode}

\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{verbatim}
% fsftex.tex
%
% iniTEX Source code to make a `fsftex' format.
%
% To make this format on Unix:
%
%   initex \&latex fsftex
%
% Then to run the format on file.tex:
%
%   tex &fsftex file
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% *** VERY IMPORTANT!!! ***
% Change the typeout banner so users know that they
%       are NOT running Standard LaTeX.
\everyjob{\typeout{fsfTeX 1.0 based on LaTeX2e \fmtversion}}
\makeatletter

% fsfTeX changes some LaTeX internals:
%   ... put what you like here ...
\def \fsf@xxxx {Some arbitrary \emph{freely modifiable} code goes here}

% fsfTeX class files have extension .fcl (this week):
\def \@clsextension {fcl}

% fsfTeX package files have extension .fsy:
\def \@pkgextension {fsy}

% Change the file handling so that when a fsfTeX package or class
% is not available, the standard LaTeX file will be read.
%
% For example, \documentclass{article} will load article.fcl if such
% a file exists, but article.cls otherwise.  This allows arbitrary
% processing on `article' documents without changing the standard
% article.cls file.

\let\fsf@missingfileerror\@missingfileerror

\def\@missingfileerror#1#2{%
  \ifx #2\@clsextension
    \InputIfFileExists {#1.cls}%
      {\wlog {fsfTeX: loading #1.cls rather than #1.#2.}}%
      {\fsf@missingfileerror {#1}{#2}}%
  \else
    \ifx #2\@pkgextension
      \InputIfFileExists {#1.sty}%
        {\wlog {fsfTeX: loading #1.sty rather than #1.#2.}}%
        {\fsf@missingfileerror {#1}{#2}}%
    \else
      \fsf@missingfileerror {#1}{#2}%
    \fi
  \fi
}

\makeatother
\dump
\end{verbatim}
=========================================


 > If we wanted to be
 > beholden to some organization for fixes to our problems, we'd do a lot
 > better relying on Microsoft; after all, they have a lot more resources
 > than you.

they may have resource (including Leslie Lamport these days) but that doesn't
mean you would be better off

 > You've probably seen my proposed license.  There are some problems with
 > it, to be sure, but tell me: does it come close to meeting your needs?
 > What drawbacks does it have, in your opinion?  (Sam's already pointed
 > one out, and I'm sure other Debian folks will have their own issues.)

not yet there (later this week)

 > > open with the exception of one point:
 > >
 > >  - LaTeX needs clause 4 of debian guidelines, in fact that is central for us
 > >    (and here I don't just speak of the team) but for very very many LaTeX
 > >    users who also have some rights which is given to them through something
 > >    like LPPL
 >
 > Perhaps.  I'm not convinced.  I think too many people are enamoured of
 > the idea that it's better to beat users about the head with the law,
 > rather than ask them to do what's obviously the Right Thing and expect
 > them to act in good faith.

going into that some other time

 > I wasn't aware that users had a "right" to stability and reliability.
 > Certainly, the current state of the software world disproves that
 > notion.

as such a user perhaps doesn't :-) though if you take the view on a
stand-alone program most programmer take the view that their programming
effort (at leats at major release cycles9 is geared towards a stable system.

now the point that i was trying to make is latex (the thing that is not just
latex kernel but all types of stuff on say CTAN) is a system that actually
becomes a program not on a single machine but on a collection ofmachines that
have to work together. a comparison would would to have gcc inserting code
generation snippets for different architectures into the generated binary
which would render the results in most cases useless.

 > You point out that you're trying to hit a balance here.  I'm glad to
 > hear it; my first impressions were that the "balance" (such as it was)
 > seemed a bit tilted away from the goals of projects like Debian.  But
 > it's not illegitimate to express this concern.
 >
 > Indeed, as bastions of freedom from time immemorial, I would think that
 > you would value such concerns.  It seems that this is the case, which is
 > good.

ta

 > Don Knuth is great.  That doesn't mean that he's infallible, or even
 > that ideas he originally expressed haven't matured beyond him.

no certainly not. and i don't belong to the class of Tex users that cross
themselves hearing his name and bless his path --- though i very value his
work and think the very fact that he made TeX so stable amd unchangable
(without a name change) has been very beneficial to the whole community
(including a lot of free software projects that used one form of TeX or the
other)

>  (BTW, I
 > believe the BSD stuff predates TeX, though I could be wrong, and there
 > are plenty of other examples of the "free philosophy" that predate even
 > BSD; general policies regarding IBM mainframe software in the 70s, for
 > instance.)

oh sure, I said "one of the early ones" and again. my claim is that TeX as
sort of a "web" system involving many machines is different from an operating
system which is essentially involving a single machine

 > If there is one thing among your (possibly unstated) goals and views
 > that seems to grate on me more than anything else, it's this:
 >
 >   You're a moron, and can't be trusted to not screw up our beautiful
 >   software.  So, hands off!
 >
 > Now, I realize that you don't say this in so many words.

did i say that in few words? I hope not

 > But all of the
 > restrictions on filenames and the business about Current Maintainers
 > make very little sense otherwise.  Certainly those clauses in the
 > license don't give people a sense of cooperation and trust.

completely different intention (see other post (in case i ever come to it))

 > It might be instructive to see if that's really the feeling among people
 > associated with LaTeX.  If not, then perhaps you could be a little less
 > paranoid about changes to LaTeX that are well-documented.  Filename
 > changes aren't necessarily the only way to let people know that things
 > have changed; indeed, filenames are often the most trouble-prone ways to
 > document changes in a system.

agreed and not agreed (again for later)

 > (Plus, to get back to the point that grates on me, *you* are allowed to
 > make any such changes that you want without worrying about filenames.
 > You don't even have to document your changes according to the license.
 > Why?  What makes you so special?)

yes, isn't that's it? :-) (or perhaps even without a smiley?)

it is a good question what makes X special here --- but note, LPPL is not
really so important for the kernel of LaTeX, it is there for helping all the
extensions to stay usable.

anyway, you can do so too, just start your own LaTeX package (from any of
mine) then everybody can enjoy using either of them ...

good night
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