Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:04:33 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QD46xC006340 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:04:07 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 g5QCg4T8007324; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:42:04 +0200 (MET DST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C21D12.03CA4680" 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 g5PM02rK012637; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:43:24 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 3147 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:43:23 +0200 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 g5QChNaE018519 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:43:23 +0200 Received: from smtp.tninet.se (sheridan.tninet.se [195.100.94.102]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g5QCfPT8007212 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:41:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [195.100.226.131] (du131-226.ppp.su-anst.tninet.se [195.100.226.131]) by sheridan.tninet.se (BMR ErlangTM/OTP 3.0) with ESMTP id 847441.95283.1025.1s5246734sheridan for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:41:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <15640.43741.596149.994860@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> References: <3D17F428.20702@toshiba.co.jp> <3.0.6.32.20020621144417.007b3100@mail.uark.edu> <15639.26375.782098.164234@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <3D17F428.20702@toshiba.co.jp> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2002 13:04:33.0890 (UTC) FILETIME=[04521420:01C21D12] X-Sender: haberg@pop.matematik.su.se 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 13:37:06 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Suggested changes to LPPL Thread-Index: AcIdEgRznizGbG2AQiCBQXTbcx+OFQ== From: "Hans Aberg" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4218 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C21D12.03CA4680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Somewhere, sometime, Frank Mittelbach wrote: >To prevent this the license contains a (in my opinion) questionable = statement: > > You may not modify in any way a file of The Program that bears a legal > notice forbidding modification of that file. ... > > > I suggest that you contact Richard Stallman. ... >as David pointed out the LPPL came into existance largely due to an = anourmous >amount of mail exchange (and personal discussions) with Richard; so his = input >is actually already there (and he was satisfied with it). > >my suggested change is in fact prompted by a suggestion from Richard = how >to get >rid that problematic part. Thus i don't expect new arguments coming = from that >direction. I recall I had an exchange with RMS recently on some such matters. The problem is that you do not indicate fully exactly what is the problem = with the license quote above. Some inputs: - I take it that copyright is essentially a set of laws about preserving the owners business rights and concerns. If no such business concerns = exist in the use of the material, other laws, such as the freedom of = expression, has precedence. - The term "The Program" may not be legally specific enough, because = UNIX OS's have something called programs (a process with its own memory = space), but at least MacOS pre-X does not (having offical names like = "applications" and the like, but never "program"). So perhaps you should define 'In = this license text, the term "the Program" indicates ...', if that has not already been done. - It is fully possible to indicate the intent of the license, in = addition to the legal formalism. Thus you may have a text say like "the intent of this license is to make sure that users will be able to use the exact original, unless modifications have been indicated in a clear manner so = as there can be no confusion to the users as to that it is not the original but a derivation". - It can be a good idea to fix "moral" principles. Various license specialization can then be worked out from those general principles, by covering up special cases of corrupting the original principles. This = then corresponds to the process in society with a legislative body that = covers up what they consider "transgressions". For example, the principle of the GNU license is that not only should = the original sources be free, but also their uses (including derivations). = This is however not always practical in say the case of libraries, GCC/Bison produced code, DLL's, various manipulations, and hybrids thereof, etc., = so that one has to write special licenses in order to cover up those cases. Hans Aberg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C21D12.03CA4680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Suggested changes to LPPL

Somewhere, sometime, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>To prevent this the license contains a (in my = opinion) questionable statement:
>
> You may not modify in any way a file of The = Program that bears a legal
> notice forbidding modification of that = file.
...
> > > I suggest that you contact Richard = Stallman.
...
>as David pointed out the LPPL came into existance = largely due to an anourmous
>amount of mail exchange (and personal = discussions) with Richard; so his input
>is actually already there (and he was satisfied = with it).
>
>my suggested change is in fact prompted by a = suggestion from Richard how
>to get
>rid that problematic part. Thus i don't expect = new arguments coming from that
>direction.

I recall I had an exchange with RMS recently on some = such matters. The
problem is that you do not indicate fully exactly = what is the problem with
the license quote above. Some inputs:

- I take it that copyright is essentially a set of = laws about preserving
the owners business rights and concerns. If no such = business concerns exist
in the use of the material, other laws, such as the = freedom of expression,
has precedence.

- The term "The Program" may not be legally = specific enough, because UNIX
OS's have something called programs (a process with = its own memory space),
but at least MacOS pre-X does not (having offical = names like "applications"
and the like, but never "program"). So = perhaps you should define 'In this
license text, the term "the Program" = indicates ...', if that has not
already been done.

- It is fully possible to indicate the intent of the = license, in addition
to the legal formalism. Thus you may have a text say = like "the intent of
this license is to make sure that users will be able = to use the exact
original, unless modifications have been indicated in = a clear manner so as
there can be no confusion to the users as to that it = is not the original
but a derivation".

- It can be a good idea to fix "moral" = principles. Various license
specialization can then be worked out from those = general principles, by
covering up special cases of corrupting the original = principles. This then
corresponds to the process in society with a = legislative body that covers
up what they consider = "transgressions".

For example, the principle of the GNU license is that = not only should the
original sources be free, but also their uses = (including derivations). This
is however not always practical in say the case of = libraries, GCC/Bison
produced code, DLL's, various manipulations, and = hybrids thereof, etc., so
that one has to write special licenses in order to = cover up those cases.

  Hans Aberg

------_=_NextPart_001_01C21D12.03CA4680--