Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 1 Jul 2002 01:45:16 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5UNitxC025831 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 01:44:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g5UNRgWK028579; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 01:27:42 +0200 (MET DST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C22090.2F418E00" 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 g5UM040F020656; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 01:29:09 +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 2236 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 01:29:09 +0200 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 g5UNT9xD021078 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 01:29:09 +0200 Received: from smtp.tninet.se (sheridan.tninet.se [195.100.94.102]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g5UNRNWK028554 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 01:27:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [195.100.226.129] (du130-226.ppp.su-anst.tninet.se [195.100.226.130]) by sheridan.tninet.se (BMR ErlangTM/OTP 3.0) with ESMTP id 54816.479642.1025.0s6848561sheridan for ; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 01:27:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: <15647.21268.599218.66401@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> 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> <15641.26504.20435.649672@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2002 23:45:16.0725 (UTC) FILETIME=[2FB02E50:01C22090] 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: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 00:26:18 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Suggested changes to LPPL Thread-Index: AcIgkC/UWmgfsE2eRsOCCSO2L43f+A== From: "Hans Aberg" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4224 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22090.2F418E00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 20:51 +0200 2002/06/30, Frank Mittelbach wrote: >+ In this license document, the `Current Maintainer' refers to the = person or >+ persons who are allowed to maintain The Program. Initially this is >+ the Copyright Holder. Perhaps the last sentence should be formulated: If no Current Maintainer maintainer has been explicitly indicated, it = refers to the Copyright Holder. As for the other stuff, I think you need to check with a lawyer about = what is really possible (perhaps RMS can help with that): For example, a legal principle of common law is that (I think) debts = cannot be transferred without consent of one in debt. So it could be that only = the copyright holder has the right to indicate who is maintaining some stuff (i.e., a maintainer cannot transfer the maintaining to somebody else). Also, I think that in order for a person to give up their legal rights, this person would normally have to make an active consent of that. So = your idea that if the maintainer cannot be contacted, somebody else would be able by that to seize the initiative to become maintainer, may not be = legal. Thus, you may to settle for another legal mechanism: Perhaps a version should be stamped with the maintainers name, and if there has been no version in x months, there is no maintainer. Thus, the copyright holder will have to grant license to the new maintainer. Of course, the idea that maintainers and copyright holders are different legal persons probably forces that the maintainer signs a document that = the work in question is transferred to the copyright holder. Hans Aberg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22090.2F418E00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Suggested changes to LPPL

At 20:51 +0200 2002/06/30, Frank Mittelbach = wrote:

>+ In this license document, the `Current = Maintainer' refers to the person or
>+ persons who are allowed to maintain The = Program. Initially this is
>+ the Copyright Holder.

Perhaps the last sentence should be formulated:
  If no Current Maintainer maintainer has been = explicitly indicated, it refers
  to the Copyright Holder.

As for the other stuff, I think you need to check with = a lawyer about what
is really possible (perhaps RMS can help with = that):

For example, a legal principle of common law is that = (I think) debts cannot
be transferred without consent of one in debt. So it = could be that only the
copyright holder has the right to indicate who is = maintaining some stuff
(i.e., a maintainer cannot transfer the maintaining = to somebody else).

Also, I think that in order for a person to give up = their legal rights,
this person would normally have to make an active = consent of that. So your
idea that if the maintainer cannot be contacted, = somebody else would be
able by that to seize the initiative to become = maintainer, may not be legal.

Thus, you may to settle for another legal mechanism: = Perhaps a version
should be stamped with the maintainers name, and if = there has been no
version in x months, there is no maintainer. Thus, = the copyright holder
will have to grant license to the new = maintainer.

Of course, the idea that maintainers and copyright = holders are different
legal persons probably forces that the maintainer = signs a document that the
work in question is transferred to the copyright = holder.

  Hans Aberg

------_=_NextPart_001_01C22090.2F418E00--