Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:55:53 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g62HtAxH002513 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:55:11 +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 g62HY1T8025495; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:34:02 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C221F1.B5291A80" 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 g625W1Gd029395; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:35:29 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 3312 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:35:29 +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 g62HZTxD002086 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:35:29 +0200 Received: from moutng0.schlund.de (moutng0.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.170]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g62HXlT8025445 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:33:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng0.kundenserver.de) by moutng0.schlund.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 17PRXA-00042e-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 19:33:48 +0200 Received: from [80.129.3.20] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng0.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17PRX9-0007i1-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 19:33:48 +0200 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id g62HWJD31105; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:32:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20020702150144.A5265@lucien.kn-bremen.de> References: <15639.26375.782098.164234@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <3D17F428.20702@toshiba.co.jp> <15640.43741.596149.994860@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <20020625.233428.00785159.wl@gnu.org> <20020626000848.A10829@lucien.kn-bremen.de> <15641.26499.585788.284057@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <20020702150144.A5265@lucien.kn-bremen.de> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2002 17:55:53.0893 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5B15D50:01C221F1] 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: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:32:19 +0100 Message-ID: A<15649.58275.388854.987078@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Suggested changes to LPPL Thread-Index: AcIh8bXg2uAR+LhuRpm2zzxNL7VyGg== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4238 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C221F1.B5291A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Martin, > Fact is that the LPPL is no approved license for Sourceforge, > Savannah (which want's GPL-compatible licenses, cf. > = https://savannah.gnu.org/faq/?group_id=3D11&question=3DWhat_is_the_regist= ration_process.txt) > nor berlios (which want's osi approved licenses). > > I know your rationale for the license, but the fact that it's not > approved by theses repositories makes life at least more > complicated than needed. I'm happy if somebody takes up the torch and gets (a variant of) LPPL = approved by any such body. We tried in 2000 and the results where so frustrating = and (in my personal opinion) unprofessional that I'm not willing to get = personally involved into it again, at least not initially. LPPL tries to find a compromise between the particular need of a user community that uses certain products and the wish of programming people = that want absolute freedom without worrying about the consequences. as long as such bodies are dominated[1] by people that are only = interested in guarding the freedom of the programmer but are not prepared to even = discuss potentially conflicting needs I don't see much chance --- but would be = happy if somebody proves me wrong. [1] at least that was the way it looked in 2000 frank as an aside: which life is made unnecessarily complicated? I'm not aware = of a single software project under LPPL which would really gain anything from living on something like Sourceforge. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be = good if LPPL is approved, on the contrary, but i don't see Sourceforge and = the like as a real practical argument. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C221F1.B5291A80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Suggested changes to LPPL

Martin,

 > Fact is that the LPPL is no approved = license for Sourceforge,
 > Savannah (which want's GPL-compatible = licenses, cf.
 > https://savannah.gnu.org/faq/?group_id=3D11&q= uestion=3DWhat_is_the_registration_process.txt)
 > nor berlios (which want's osi approved = licenses).
 >
 > I know your rationale for the license, but = the fact that it's not
 > approved by theses repositories makes life = at least more
 > complicated than needed.


I'm happy if somebody takes up the torch and gets (a = variant of) LPPL approved
by any such body. We tried in 2000 and the results = where so frustrating and
(in my personal opinion) unprofessional that I'm not = willing to get personally
involved into it again, at least not = initially.

LPPL tries to find a compromise between the particular = need of a user
community that uses certain products and the wish of = programming people that
want absolute freedom without worrying about the = consequences.

as long as such bodies are dominated[1] by people that = are only interested in
guarding the freedom of the programmer but are not = prepared to even discuss
potentially conflicting needs I don't see much chance = --- but would be happy
if somebody proves me wrong.

[1] at least that was the way it looked in 2000

frank

as an aside: which life is made unnecessarily = complicated? I'm not aware of a
single software project under LPPL which would really = gain anything from
living on something like Sourceforge. I'm not saying = that it wouldn't be good
if LPPL is approved, on the contrary, but i don't see = Sourceforge and the like
as a real practical argument.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C221F1.B5291A80--