Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:23:28 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q7N1xC005146 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:23:02 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g5Q74oT8007049; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:04:50 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C21CE2.5DB31800" Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id g5PM02eG012637; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:06:47 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 2431 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:06:47 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id g5Q76kaE015150 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:06:46 +0200 Received: from moutng1.kundenserver.de (moutng1.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g5Q74nT8007040 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:04:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng0.kundenserver.de) by moutng1.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 17N6rB-0002lO-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:04:49 +0200 Received: from [80.129.5.34] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng0.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17N6rB-0007as-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:04:49 +0200 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id g5Q74eG24682; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:04:40 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20020621144417.007b3100@mail.uark.edu> <15639.26375.782098.164234@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <3D17F428.20702@toshiba.co.jp> <15640.43741.596149.994860@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2002 07:23:28.0840 (UTC) FILETIME=[5E334480:01C21CE2] X-Authentication-Warning: istrati.mittelbach-online.de: frank set sender to frank@mittelbach-online.de using -f X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.6 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Suggested changes to LPPL Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:04:40 +0100 Message-ID: A<15641.26504.20435.649672@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Suggested changes to LPPL Thread-Index: AcIc4l5OaTYtTpWWSZywpiWxmQotGA== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4216 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C21CE2.5DB31800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Donald, > I have another problem with the use of LPPL for contributed packages: > it has no provision for the author/supporter "disappearing" from LaLa > LaTeX land, and prevents anybody from adopting support in perpetuity. > This is not really a problem for the LaTeX core distribution. I agree with you that this is a threat. but do you have a good = suggestion on how to resolve it? Bernard suggested "as long as the author can be = reached by email [or ...]" is that the way to go? and if so how would that be phrased? And what = would be exactly the status of such parentless software? should it require somebody else stepping in and anouncing to support the software? (prior to being allowed to take over?) or would after that = period the software essentially become GPL (ie changeable by anybody without = actually maintaing it, ie generating the language problem LPPL tries to avoid?) i personally think that it is important to require a take-over = responsibility --- otherwsie i think it would be better to leave a package alone = unchange but identical everywhere. comments? (including suggestions for a license text please :-) frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C21CE2.5DB31800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Suggested changes to LPPL

Donald,

 > I have another problem with the use of LPPL = for contributed packages:
 > it has no provision for the = author/supporter "disappearing" from LaLa
 > LaTeX land, and prevents anybody from = adopting support in perpetuity.
 > This is not really a problem for the LaTeX = core distribution.

I agree with you that this is a threat. but do you = have a good suggestion on
how to resolve it? Bernard suggested "as long as = the author can be reached by
email [or ...]"

is that the way to go? and if so how would that be = phrased? And what would be
exactly the status of such parentless = software?

should it require somebody else stepping in and = anouncing to support the
software? (prior to being allowed to take over?) or = would after that period
the software essentially become GPL (ie changeable by = anybody without actually
maintaing it, ie generating the language problem LPPL = tries to avoid?)

i personally think that it is important to require a = take-over responsibility
--- otherwsie i think it would be better to leave a = package alone unchange but
identical everywhere.

comments? (including suggestions for a license text = please :-)

frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C21CE2.5DB31800--