Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:15:23 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g63GEgxH007135 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:14:42 +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 g63G2dT8005758; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:02:39 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C222AC.D569DF80" 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 g633BaEx004192; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:04:04 +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 3392 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:04:04 +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 g63G44xD009012 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:04:04 +0200 Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g63G2QT8005703 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:02:26 +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 snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17PmaC-0000bJ-00; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 12:02:20 -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 g63G1T49008739; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 09:01:29 -0700 In-Reply-To: Message from Frank Mittelbach of "Tue, 02 Jul 2002 19:32:19 +0200." <15649.58275.388854.987078@istrati.mittelbach-online.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> <15649.58275.388854.987078@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 16:15:23.0603 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5C5E230:01C222AC] 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 17:01:29 +0100 Message-ID: A<200207031601.g63G1T49008739@diziet.clawpaws.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Suggested changes to LPPL Thread-Index: AcIirNXgRvcQKdf7S7umLUCT3yMp3Q== From: "C.M. Connelly" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4247 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C222AC.D569DF80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "FM" =3D=3D Frank Mittelbach FM> I'm happy if somebody takes up the torch and gets (a FM> variant of) LPPL approved by any such body. We tried in FM> 2000 and the results where so frustrating and (in my FM> personal opinion) unprofessional that I'm not willing to FM> get personally involved into it again, at least not FM> initially. I'm not sure which effort Frank is referring to. I'm aware of two, one of which involved a discussion with someone at ``freesoftware.org'', which is a company that sells packaged free software and has nothing to do with the free-software or open-source movements. That discussion apparently degenerated into a flamewar between RMS and the people running ``freesoftware.org'' and thus led nowhere for the LPPL. There was another attempt made by Russell Nelson from crynwr.com, on the Open Source Initiative's [1] license-discuss list. (Archived at [2].) That discussion included objections to the distribution restrictions (as I have noted), and some quibbles about wording and punctuation, but little more. There was no participation in the discussion by anyone from the LaTeX Project, and the discussion died out after concluding that the LPPL had problems. If you want to get the license approved, or at least ensure that it says what you want it to say and that you can justify everything in it, then someone (or several someones) from the Project are going to need to champion it against critics. I recommend debian-legal, as I believe that if the folks there are happy, the license would sail through the OSI approval process. You might prefer dealing with OSI directly. But someone is going to need to take the time to have the discussion in public, with people who don't completely understand the intent of the license and will poke and prod at it to expose its weaknesses. No matter what the outcome, hearing what other people think the license means based on its text should help you come up with a stronger, more coherent statement. I strongly recommend reading 1. The Open Source Definition (based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines) 2. The Debian Free Software Guidelines To get an idea of what people are likely to criticize and why. 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+ [1] Open Source Initiative [2] license-discuss@opensource.org thread on the LaTeX Project Public License = ------_=_NextPart_001_01C222AC.D569DF80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Suggested changes to LPPL

"FM" =3D=3D Frank Mittelbach = <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG>


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

I'm not sure which effort Frank is referring to.  = I'm aware of
two, one of which involved a discussion with someone = at
``freesoftware.org'', which is a company that sells = packaged free
software and has nothing to do with the free-software = or
open-source movements.  That discussion = apparently degenerated
into a flamewar between RMS and the people = running
``freesoftware.org'' and thus led nowhere for the = LPPL.

There was another attempt made by Russell Nelson from = crynwr.com,
on the Open Source Initiative's [1] license-discuss = list.
(Archived at [2].)

That discussion included objections to the = distribution
restrictions (as I have noted), and some quibbles = about wording
and punctuation, but little more.  There was no = participation in
the discussion by anyone from the LaTeX Project, and = the
discussion died out after concluding that the LPPL = had problems.

If you want to get the license approved, or at least = ensure that
it says what you want it to say and that you can = justify
everything in it, then someone (or several someones) = from the
Project are going to need to champion it against = critics.  I
recommend debian-legal, as I believe that if the = folks there are
happy, the license would sail through the OSI = approval process.
You might prefer dealing with OSI directly.

But someone is going to need to take the time to have = the
discussion in public, with people who don't = completely understand
the intent of the license and will poke and prod at = it to expose
its weaknesses.  No matter what the outcome, = hearing what other
people think the license means based on its text = should help you
come up with a stronger, more coherent = statement.

I strongly recommend reading

   1. The Open Source Definition (based on = the Debian Free
      Software = Guidelines)
      <http://www.opensou= rce.org/docs/definition.php>

   2. The Debian Free Software = Guidelines
      <http://www.debi= an.org/social_contract#guidelines>

To get an idea of what people are likely to criticize = and why.

   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+

[1] Open Source Initiative
    <http://www.opensource.org>

[2] license-discuss@opensource.org
    thread on the LaTeX Project Public = License
   <http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:1961:20000= 5:bbblnpbacbllnbmdlfgk#b>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C222AC.D569DF80--