X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2151" "Sat" "24" "June" "1995" "13:08:53" "+0200" "Chris Rowley" "C.A.Rowley@OPEN.AC.UK" nil "49" "Re: LaTeX distribution and modification conditions" "^Date:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE (vzdmzg.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.178.7]) by trudi.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA14868 for ; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:11:25 +0200 Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON by MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE (PMDF V4.3-12 #4432) id <01HS333LSHY8934Z13@MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE>; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:11:20 +0100 Received: from mxrelay.gmd.de by MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE (PMDF V4.3-12 #4432) id <01HS333HBWHCC3RZOU@MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE>; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:11:14 +0100 Received: from vm.gmd.de by mxrelay.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 6F5583C8 ; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:11:09 +0200 Received: from VM.GMD.DE (NJE origin LISTSERV@DEARN) by VM.GMD.DE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with BSMTP id 5767; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:10:50 +0200 Received: from VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV release 1.8b) with NJE id 7569 for LATEX-L@VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:08:49 +0000 Received: from DHDURZ1 (NJE origin SMTP@DHDURZ1) by VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2092; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:07:33 +0000 Received: from ixgate01.dfnrelay.d400.de by vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Sat, 24 Jun 95 13:07:31 CET X400-Received: by mta d400relay in /PRMD=dfnrelay/ADMD=d400/C=de/; Relayed; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:11:01 +0200 X400-Received: by /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/; Relayed; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:08:59 +0200 X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:08:53 +0200 X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:08:53 +0200 Alternate-recipient: Allowed Reply-to: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Message-id: <"3785 Sat Jun 24 12:09:03 1995"@mhs-relay.ac.uk> X-Envelope-to: schoepf@goofy.zdv.uni-mainz.de X-VMS-To: MAIL1::"LATEX-L@VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE" X-VMS-Cc: CA_ROWLEY Content-identifier: RE: LaTeX dis... MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X400-Content-type: P2-1984 (2) X400-MTS-identifier: [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/;sun.mhs-re.782:24.05.95.11.08.59] X400-Originator: C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:08:53 +0200 From: Chris Rowley Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: LaTeX distribution and modification conditions Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1651 A case study! Chris Rowley --- On behalf of The LaTeX3 Project Team ========================================================================== From: Richard Stallman To make a clear and unambiguous answer possible, I propose a specific hypothetical scenario, by stating the specs of a change that ought to be extremely simple, technically. I'd like to ask the LaTeX developers, and more generally the people who believe that LaTeX under these terms is free software, what method they recommend for making this change and distributing a LaTeX modified in this way. Here is the specification for this hypothetically-desired change: To modify LaTeX so that any file which uses article.sty is printed with 2mm extra space between lines and 5mm extra space between paragraphs. This should work automatically: it should not require any manual alteration in the individual files that are printed. Simply printing any file that uses article.sty should get the extra whitespace, with no other action by the user. What method do you recommend for making and distributing this change? Now let us suppose that after two years, a majority of the user public prefers this change. Organizations such as the Free Software Foundation would find it useful to distribute LaTeX with the change included, so that users would get what they (probably) prefer without having to do complex things at installation time. But let's suppose that the LaTeX maintainers stubbornly refuse to change their version. How do you recommend we distribute the improved LaTeX while following the current distribution conditions? This scenario is hypothetical. I do not actually want to make this change; judged as a change in LaTeX, I would consider it a bad one. But as a probe for the issue at hand, it is good enough. "Free software" refers to three kinds of freedom. One of them is the freedom to make improvements and distribute improved versions. A complex way may be feasible; but if there is no feasible way to distribute a LaTeX with this modification, then LaTeX is not free software.