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 21:32:13 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (158 lines)

Branden Robinson writes:
 > > but again, there is one major miss-statement in your sentence.  we don't
 > > restrict people from modifying files, we only ask them to do it in a way that
 > > is helps everybody (including them in the long run).
 >
 > A requirement to rename *is* a restriction.

indeed, in so far as *any* codification of a procedural requirement is
restricting. But from that i can only conclude that you must be lobbying
against any license (since in one way or another all of them require
structured behaviour, for example Artistic has in clause 3 and 4 a number of
requirement which need to be (alternatively) fulfilled---and one of which is
rename nonstandard executables to avoid name clashes).

The license is however not "restricting modification" other than requiring a
procedure for it and through that modification anything is achievable, so your
modification possibilities are not restricted.

anyway all that is beside the point in my opinion as you correctly say ...

 >
 > > the fact that in the "free software world" but outside LaTeX the importance
 > > of the goals aren't seen, as well as the fact that codifying those goals
 > > improved the situation within the LaTeX community a lot makes us believe that
 > > our approach in that particular situation is better.
 >
 > You're certainly entitled to that belief, but sympathy doesn't render a
 > license "free" under the Debian Free Software Guidelines; only its terms
 > can do so.

... indeed---let's discuss DFSG terms. that is what i would like to discuss,
where please are the guidelines violated (and if indeed they are, discuss
how/if that can be rectified)

and as far as the requirement to change names in certain situation is
concerned, I don't see how that should clash with DFSG as it is covered by
clause 4.

 > > i understand that there are a large number of people (who work with other type
 > > of free software) that do not like the fact that we preserve some rights of
 > > the users of LaTeX
 >
 > Can you enumerate what rights of the user you are preserving by
 > forbidding them from distributing modified files without changing the
 > filename?

I have tried to do that already in my posts to Jeff, please reread them. in a
nutshell: LaTeX is not just the installation on a local machine it is
the ability to communicate over a network of machines and to get identical
results in different places.  LPPL preserves the right of the user to get
identical output from identical input which is a major feature of TeX.

 > > It is certainly (a bit) more work to rename a file rather than to
 > > simply change it, but while I concur with you that for stuff which is
 > > essentially local to my environment this is fine (and thus something
 > > like GPL or whatever is appropriate) for the benefit of LaTeX as a
 > > freely extensible and changeable system for exchange of information it
 > > is not.
 >
 > I hope you'll agree with me that this statement is a subjective analysis.

subjective analysis of what? sure it is subjective (what else should it be, I
am a subject) but so is most of what i've seen so far as arguments or rather
comments with respect to LPPL.

=============================

 > >  > Requirements of notification of modification in original source code and
 > >  > in program diagnostic output are perfectly acceptable under the DFSG;
 > >  > badging or watermarking the generated document while forbidding the
 > >  > removal of same would not be.
 > >
 > > sorry, you lost me. what exactly is there that would not be acceptable?
 >
 > Asserting intellectual property right in the output of LaTeX would not
 > be acceptable[1].  Such an assertion would be logically required if you
 > put some indicator of modified-LaTeX status into users' output and
 > forbade them from removing that indicator.

ehh? who asks for that? are you saying that it is not allowed to require on
the terminal display (when a program starts) to ensure that it identifies
itself properly? There is no requirement whatsoever to identify itself in its
program output, eg on the printed page or something. All the license ask that
if it is not X it should not display claiming to be X.

if there is something in LPPL (not in any statements made in this list) from
which you wrongly got this impression, please point it out, since this is
clearly neither wanted nor needed.

===============================

 > > if you manage to do that I would have no qualms to change to different system
 > > or license, but not if that means the user has to read through potentially
 > > thousand of source files to find a file that makes his document work
 > > differently on his site than on others.
 >
 > I'm sure there are lots of ways.  One possibility that springs to mind
 > that would not run afoul of the DFSG would be to require the existence
 > of a "flag file" in modified distributions of LaTeX.  The LaTeX engine
 > could look for this file at some convenience stage in its execution and
 > spew a warning to standard output or standard error[2].

sorry, but you missed the point about what LaTeX is: it is not just a core
distribution of the 20odd files (for those one could implement any scheme to
keep it sane, it is a few hundred different files written by many different
people and thereis no way to automatically detect a "standard" state for that
environment by software means easily.

 > I'm not a very
 > sophisticated TeX user, but I'm in the habit of reading the warnings it
 > gives me.  I've learned to ignore overfull and underfull hboxes, but
 > maybe real TeXperts have such self-confidence that they ignore
 > everything.  :)  In any event, it's the user's responsibility to read
 > the output the program gives him.

beside being nearly impossible to implement (if at all) that would be
impractical

And to be honnest what "seems to grate on me more than anything else" (to use
Jeff's words) are statements like your last sentence, ie the progammers view
of the type

  free software is to serve my private whims -- f*** the others

I hope i'm mistaken because otherwise there is no point in having any such
discussion.

Why should the user if she asks for

  \usepackage{caption}

as part of her document have to check each time she moves the file from one
installation to another that it is still the "caption" she thinks it is? if
she prefers the forged version she can use ccaption or caption2 package with
the advantage that all can coexist (and do) and also do so on the other side
of the ocean or whereever.

=======================

Again, please get back to the original goal of finding out if, and if so how,
LPPL would conflict with DFSG (and how to fix that if it is indeed the case)
and not argue on the level of statements of the type

  It appears that Debian's consensus is that forbidding the renaming of
  files is too large a stick to achieve your goal of notification of
  deviation from a standard.

which is (i hope you agree) nothing other than a subjective feeling not borne
out of any DFSG terms.

So far I have seen the comments by Jeff (who goes in a lot of detail through
the license, for which i would like to thank him, and to which i intend to get
back) but other than that, all I heard so far and repeatedly heard is "we
don't like that you use clause 4 and therefore it is a license  acceptable by
us" (though in more elaborate words).


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