Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:20:52 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q7KPxC005135 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:20:26 +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 g5Q74tT8007074; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:04:55 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C21CE2.00B76200" 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 g5PM02eM012637; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:06:52 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 2435 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:06:51 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id g5Q76paE015160 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:06:51 +0200 Received: from moutng0.schlund.de (moutng0.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.170]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g5Q74tWK001689 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:04:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [212.227.126.162] (helo=mrelayng1.schlund.de) by moutng0.schlund.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 17N6rG-0007dF-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:04:54 +0200 Received: from [80.129.5.34] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng1.schlund.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17N6rF-0000Nr-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:04:53 +0200 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id g5Q74iV24686; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:04:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200206260556.g5Q5u4BJ027883@diziet.clawpaws.net> 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> <200206260556.g5Q5u4BJ027883@diziet.clawpaws.net> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2002 07:20:52.0422 (UTC) FILETIME=[00F7C660:01C21CE2] 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 08:04:44 +0100 Message-ID: A<15641.26508.495316.386198@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Suggested changes to LPPL Thread-Index: AcIc4gEb9ZtUUq8lQnmcWvQRbTkW1Q== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4217 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C21CE2.00B76200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Claire, > - From my mail, it looks like two of them are likely to be > > * Restrictions on distribution -- requiring the distribution of > the source (dtx and ins files) as well as the derived files > (sty, tex, ps, pdf, etc.), despite the appearance of > copyright statements. (Debian currently distributes a > separate tetex-source package that contains the dtx and ins > files.) not sure I understand that statement. The license tries to ensure that = the user of the software has a chance to get at the source and documentation = and that he doesn't get crippled versions. Most of that was prompted by very incomplete (commercial and otherwise) versions of LaTeX which people had = to struggle with. However we never argued against restructuring into different trees or to provide the sources only in archived form. In fact i don't even think = that the license would prohibit to distribute only a runtime version of The = Program (eg the .sty files) togethwer with an information how to obtain the complete documented product (we don't recomment that but i would say it is = allowed) > * Questions about the requirement to rename modified files. which are? > If you want to get a better idea of what some of the more > ``hard-line'' Debian people are thinking, I (or Frank) could i would be very interested as long as it actually brings up some = arguments or facts that can be either dissected or help to make the license better = --- the situation right now is so frustrating from my point of view because = other than rumours nothing every came to light > submit the text of Frank's changes to the > mailing list for discussion or > invite interested parties from that list to join latex-l for (at > least) the duration of this discussion. i would welcome that, but i would prefer to first sort out the = suggestions for 1.3 here, eg see if we can come to a conclusion on Donald's comment (and perhaps others to come) --- if we between the LaTeX community still have something to improve to feel comfortable with it then it is premature to discuss that license with debian-legal. frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C21CE2.00B76200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Suggested changes to LPPL

Claire,

 > - From my mail, it looks like two of them = are likely to be
 >
 >    * Restrictions on = distribution -- requiring the distribution of
 >      the source = (dtx and ins files) as well as the derived files
 >      (sty, tex, = ps, pdf, etc.), despite the appearance of
 >      copyright = statements.  (Debian currently distributes a
 >      separate = tetex-source package that contains the dtx and ins
 >      = files.)

not sure I understand that statement. The license = tries to ensure that the
user of the software has a chance to get at the = source and documentation and
that he doesn't get crippled versions. Most of that = was prompted by very
incomplete (commercial and otherwise) versions of = LaTeX which people had to
struggle with.

However we never argued against restructuring into = different trees or to
provide the sources only in archived form. In fact i = don't even think that the
license would prohibit to distribute only a runtime = version of The Program (eg
the .sty files) togethwer with an information how to = obtain the complete
documented product (we don't recomment that but i = would say it is allowed)

 >    * Questions about the = requirement to rename modified files.

which are?

 > If you want to get a better idea of what = some of the more
 > ``hard-line'' Debian people are thinking, = I (or Frank) could

i would be very interested as long as it actually = brings up some arguments or
facts that can be either dissected or help to make = the license better --- the
situation right now is so frustrating from my point = of view because other than
rumours nothing every came to light

 > submit the text of Frank's changes to = the
 > <debian-legal@lists.debian.org> = mailing list for discussion or
 > invite interested parties from that list = to join latex-l for (at
 > least) the duration of this = discussion.

i would welcome that, but i would prefer to first sort = out the suggestions for
1.3 here, eg see if we can come to a conclusion on = Donald's comment (and
perhaps others to come) --- if we between the LaTeX = community still have
something to improve to feel comfortable with it then = it is premature to
discuss that license with debian-legal.

frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C21CE2.00B76200--