Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:51:34 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g63FoqxH007008 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:50:53 +0200 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 g63FcnWK015419; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:38:49 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C222A9.81A9C700" 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 g633BaEl004192; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:40:12 +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 3379 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:40:12 +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 g63FeCxD008922 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:40:12 +0200 Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g63FcYWK015340 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:38:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsanca1-ar16-4-47-007-214.lsanca1.elnk.dsl.genuity.net ([4.47.7.214] helo=diziet.clawpaws.net) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17PmD8-0003rI-00; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 11:38:30 -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 g63FbW49008588; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 08:37:32 -0700 In-Reply-To: Message from Frank Mittelbach of "Mon, 01 Jul 2002 20:30:17 +0200." <15648.40889.244234.33682@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> <200207011544.g61FiC49026221@diziet.clawpaws.net> <15648.40889.244234.33682@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> Return-Path: X-Mailer: mh-e 6.1; nmh 1.0.4+dev; Emacs 21.2 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2002 15:51:34.0430 (UTC) FILETIME=[81EB63E0:01C222A9] 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, 3 Jul 2002 16:37:32 +0100 Message-ID: A<200207031537.g63FbW49008588@diziet.clawpaws.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Suggested changes to LPPL Thread-Index: AcIiqYInzHDI5leZTyaz18hZV2NWMg== From: "C.M. Connelly" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4246 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C222A9.81A9C700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I really do understand the *purpose* of the LPPL. I agree that its primary goal appears to be maintaining consistency so that a document using a specific group of package generates more-or-less the same typeset representation no matter where it's processed. I even think that goal is a worthy one. What I'm trying to point out, though, is that there are some people (*not me*) in the Debian Project who believe that there are aspects of the LPPL that conflict with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Assuming that you care about DFSG status (and therefore about LaTeX being distributable by Debian and other projects that use the DFSG as a guide -- the Open Source Initiative's criteria are essentially identical to the DFSG), understanding the conflicts and considering alternatives is important. Once again, the main concerns appear to be 1. The restriction on modifying files without changing their names, even if those files will never be distributed 2. The requirement to distribute modified (and renamed) files with a complete set of the unmodified versions of those files There are additional quibbles about some perceived redundancy; the precise wording of various phrases; and the placement of punctuation that can subtly change the meaning of particular clauses, as well, but I'll leave that to the people with those concerns to articulate. I'm not the one making these judgements, and I don't necessarily agree with them. I'm simply passing them along so that you can take them into consideration in order to ensure that they can pass muster with organizations using the DFSG or DFSG-like criteria to judge the ``freedom'' of licenses. 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_01C222A9.81A9C700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Suggested changes to LPPL

I really do understand the *purpose* of the = LPPL.  I agree that
its primary goal appears to be maintaining = consistency so that a
document using a specific group of package generates = more-or-less
the same typeset representation no matter where it's = processed.  I
even think that goal is a worthy one.

What I'm trying to point out, though, is that there = are some
people (*not me*) in the Debian Project who believe = that there are
aspects of the LPPL that conflict with the Debian = Free Software
Guidelines.  Assuming that you care about DFSG = status (and
therefore about LaTeX being distributable by Debian = and other
projects that use the DFSG as a guide -- the Open = Source
Initiative's criteria are essentially identical to = the DFSG),
understanding the conflicts and considering = alternatives is
important.

Once again, the main concerns appear to be

   1. The restriction on modifying files = without changing their
      names, even if those = files will never be distributed

   2. The requirement to distribute modified = (and renamed) files
      with a complete set of = the unmodified versions of those
      files

There are additional quibbles about some perceived = redundancy; the
precise wording of various phrases; and the placement = of
punctuation that can subtly change the meaning of = particular
clauses, as well, but I'll leave that to the people = with those
concerns to articulate.

I'm not the one making these judgements, and I don't = necessarily
agree with them.  I'm simply passing them along = so that you can
take them into consideration in order to ensure that = they can pass
muster with organizations using the DFSG or DFSG-like = criteria to
judge the ``freedom'' of licenses.

   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_01C222A9.81A9C700--