Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 1 Jul 2002 18:00:37 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g61G0GxC029056 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 18:00:17 +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 g61FkoT8015234; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 17:46:50 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C22118.707D8080" 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 g615CgCJ021959; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 17:47:42 +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 3060 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 17:47:42 +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 g61FlgxD026543 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 17:47:42 +0200 Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g61FjvWK023796 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 17:45:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsanca1-ar16-4-47-001-087.lsanca1.elnk.dsl.genuity.net ([4.47.1.87] helo=diziet.clawpaws.net) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17P3ND-0000fh-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 11:45:56 -0400 Received: from diziet.clawpaws.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by diziet.clawpaws.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with ESMTP id g61FiC49026221 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 08:44:12 -0700 In-Reply-To: Message from Donald Arseneau of "Sat, 29 Jun 2002 02:47:04 PDT." 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-Mailer: mh-e 6.1; nmh 1.0.4+dev; Emacs 21.2 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2002 16:00:37.0311 (UTC) FILETIME=[70ACF4F0:01C22118] 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 16:44:12 +0100 Message-ID: A<200207011544.g61FiC49026221@diziet.clawpaws.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Suggested changes to LPPL Thread-Index: AcIhGHDUxPMU7R+bT6a5PeJfZFWlrQ== From: "C.M. Connelly" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4228 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22118.707D8080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "DA" =3D=3D Donald Arseneau DA> I've tried to come up with a good general-purpose way to DA> express the "proof of disappearance", and have not come up DA> with anything robust. If it were just for myself, I could DA> say "not posting to the usenet newsgroup comp.text.tex for DA> six months", but that's not good for most people. The DA> condition of "reachable by email" makes the most sense, if DA> there is an email address in the package source, but email DA> addresses change, and perhaps the return address doesn't DA> get updated. Do we really need to have a time limit built into the license? If what we're concerned about here is someone ``hijacking'' a particular package, then it might make more sense to define some restrictions on uploading to CTAN and leaving the license such that anyone can modify the package and make it available somewhere else. CTAN could be (and is, I thought) regarded as the ``official repository'' of TeX/LaTeX packages, and might require a higher standard of proof before allowing someone other than the original author to upload a changed version of a package. Perhaps such an upload would only be allowed with one or more of the following: * An e-mail message (possibly digitally signed) stating that the new author has permission to ``take over the package'' * An e-mail message (possibly digitally signed) stating that the new author has permission to upload this particular version of a package * Evidence that the original author is unreachable, and that the uploading author has tried multiple methods * Verifiably minor bug fixes or feature additions (the package remains backwards-compatible with older documents written using the older version of the package) That way the LPPL could be a very free license while still preserving an official TeX source tree with a significant level of sanity checking. If the changes were too great to allow complete backwards compatibility, the CTAN maintainers could enforce a name change on the package (while at the same time recommending the newer package with a note in the CTAN Catalogue or similar). We might want something that says that if the original author returns, she can accept or reject any changes made to the package in future updates, although that could be dicey should the modified version of the package become popular. I don't think that the license has to assume that anyone making changes is up to no good and restrict people's ability to make those changes or to make those changes available in some form. At the moment, the LPPL doesn't prevent an original author from making significant changes to their package that break backwards compatibility or even completely change its functionality. IMHO, the gatekeeper function shouldn't be encoded in the license, but in the rules for the archive. If the main TeX distributions (notably teTeX and TeX Live) stick with the official sources, then you're going to be able to extend the purity of distribution to something like 98% of the installed user base, because most people running TeX just install a complete distribution. On a related note, if CTAN, the LaTeX Project, TUG, or one of the European user groups could provide the resources for a centralized bug-tracking system that all CTAN authors could use, such a system could be a very valuable way to keep track of problems, fixes, and even the activity and availability of authors. (I'm thinking, of course, of Debian's BTS (bugs.debian.org), which tracks an enormous amount of information without being especially complicated.) Claire +=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+= =3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+ Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his spare time; only by what he does as his work. W.R. Lethaby +=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+= =3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+ C.M. Connelly c@eskimo.com SHC, DS +=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+= =3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22118.707D8080 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Suggested changes to LPPL

"DA" =3D=3D Donald Arseneau = <asnd@TRIUMF.CA>

    DA> I've tried to come up with a = good general-purpose way to
    DA> express the "proof of = disappearance", and have not come up
    DA> with anything robust.  = If it were just for myself, I could
    DA> say "not posting to = the usenet newsgroup comp.text.tex for
    DA> six months", but = that's not good for most people.  The
    DA> condition of = "reachable by email" makes the most sense, if
    DA> there is an email address = in the package source, but email
    DA> addresses change, and = perhaps the return address doesn't
    DA> get updated.

Do we really need to have a time limit built into the = license?

If what we're concerned about here is someone = ``hijacking'' a
particular package, then it might make more sense to = define some
restrictions on uploading to CTAN and leaving the = license such
that anyone can modify the package and make it = available somewhere
else.

CTAN could be (and is, I thought) regarded as the = ``official
repository'' of TeX/LaTeX packages, and might require = a higher
standard of proof before allowing someone other than = the original
author to upload a changed version of a = package.  Perhaps such an
upload would only be allowed with one or more of the = following:

   * An e-mail message (possibly digitally = signed) stating that
     the new author has = permission to ``take over the package''

   * An e-mail message (possibly digitally = signed) stating that
     the new author has = permission to upload this particular
     version of a package

   * Evidence that the original author is = unreachable, and that
     the uploading author has = tried multiple methods

   * Verifiably minor bug fixes or feature = additions (the package
     remains backwards-compatible = with older documents written
     using the older version of = the package)

That way the LPPL could be a very free license while = still
preserving an official TeX source tree with a = significant level of
sanity checking.  If the changes were too great = to allow complete
backwards compatibility, the CTAN maintainers could = enforce a name
change on the package (while at the same time = recommending the
newer package with a note in the CTAN Catalogue or = similar).

We might want something that says that if the original = author
returns, she can accept or reject any changes made to = the package
in future updates, although that could be dicey = should the
modified version of the package become = popular.

I don't think that the license has to assume that = anyone making
changes is up to no good and restrict people's = ability to make
those changes or to make those changes available in = some form.  At
the moment, the LPPL doesn't prevent an original = author from
making significant changes to their package that = break backwards
compatibility or even completely change its = functionality.

IMHO, the gatekeeper function shouldn't be encoded in = the license,
but in the rules for the archive.  If the main = TeX distributions
(notably teTeX and TeX Live) stick with the official = sources, then
you're going to be able to extend the purity of = distribution to
something like 98% of the installed user base, = because most people
running TeX just install a complete = distribution.


On a related note, if CTAN, the LaTeX Project, TUG, or = one of the
European user groups could provide the resources for = a centralized
bug-tracking system that all CTAN authors could use, = such a system
could be a very valuable way to keep track of = problems, fixes, and
even the activity and availability of authors.  = (I'm thinking, of
course, of Debian's BTS (bugs.debian.org), which = tracks an
enormous amount of information without being = especially
complicated.)

   Claire

+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D= +=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+= =3D+=3D+
 Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised = by what he does in his
          &nbs= p; spare time; only by what he does as his work.
          &nbs= p;            = ;      W.R. Lethaby
+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D= +=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+= =3D+=3D+
  C.M. = Connelly           = ;    = c@eskimo.com          &= nbsp;        SHC, DS
+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D= +=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+= =3D+=3D+

------_=_NextPart_001_01C22118.707D8080--