Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:21:02 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g68DKRWi025708 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:20:28 +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 g68D1aWK027404; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:01:36 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C22682.4E3CB300" 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 g681svCH007248; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:02:36 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 4910 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:02:36 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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 g68D2VxD021214 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:02:36 +0200 Received: from gwyn.kn-bremen.de (root@gwyn.kn-bremen.de [212.63.36.242]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g68D10WK027272 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:01:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gwyn.kn-bremen.de (uucp@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gwyn.kn-bremen.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -5) with ESMTP id g68D0w3B007736 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:00:58 +0200 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gwyn.kn-bremen.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -5) with UUCP id g68D0wpu007734 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:00:58 +0200 Received: (from ms@localhost) by lucien.oneiros.kn-bremen.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA24010 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:35:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: <630BE70C8320D6118D240002A589ABB201CB7C00@DERUM201>; from frank.mittelbach@EDS.COM on Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 09:41:16AM +0100 References: <630BE70C8320D6118D240002A589ABB201CB7C00@DERUM201> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jul 2002 13:21:02.0462 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E8331E0:01C22682] mail-followup-to: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.6 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:35:01 +0100 Message-ID: A<20020708123501.B23884@lucien.kn-bremen.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org Thread-Index: AcImgk6gSrbIvQUxTyaj3eIqXlqeXg== From: "Martin Schroeder" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4261 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22682.4E3CB300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2002-07-08 09:41:16 +0100, Mittelbach, Frank wrote: > if savannah only accepts GPL then that doesn't surprise me. Neither me, but Savannah is the only repository that at least tries to be open to other licenses ("case by case"). The others just point to osi. > what i have seen two days ago as arguments however was only the one = about > not liking to rename files (which you could have pointed out is = allowed as > part of the OSI as well as the debian guidelines) > > have there been any new arguments? Not really. They finally read modguide and though a bit, but it boils down to: In addition to the comments at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html, I think the LPPL is trying to define and enforce a distribution policy within the license. This is a strange idea. Imagine what mess it would be if the Linux kernel imposed the same restrictions on system calls ?-) Instead a specification was issued (http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/) to encourage the necessary standardization and uniformity. Defining a standard interface and behaviour is a complex matter that can hardly be implemented by a license. Savannah will not host a project under the LPPL. In my understanding nothing prevents you from releasing your project under the GNU GPL. ------------ Personnally, I'm absolutely not conviced by thoses arguments. For a reason or another, it could be usefull to modify a file and distribute it for a particular audience, without changing is name for compatibily reasons. Those compatibilities reasons evoqued by the latex project seems to me nonsense: no one can forbid me to write a book.cls, from scratch, that would be incompatible with the standard book.cls. But I think we should host LPPL files since the incompability with the GPL is not a major incompability: if we rename the file, we can do anything we could do with a GPL file. Renaming a file can be painy but it's possible to do in any case. So, in any case, if we what, we can do what we want in the GPL way with a LPPL file. If somebody wants to continue the discussion, they are welcome to do so. Best regards Martin -- http://www.tm.oneiros.de ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22682.4E3CB300 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org

On 2002-07-08 09:41:16 +0100, Mittelbach, Frank = wrote:
> if savannah only accepts GPL then that doesn't = surprise me.

Neither me, but Savannah is the only repository that = at least
tries to be open to other licenses ("case by = case"). The others
just point to osi.

> what i have seen two days ago as arguments = however was only the one about
> not liking to rename files (which you could have = pointed out is allowed as
> part of the OSI as well as the debian = guidelines)
>
> have there been any new arguments?

Not really. They finally read modguide and though a = bit, but it
boils down to:

<quote>
In addition to the comments at
http://www.gnu.org= /licenses/license-list.html, I think the LPPL
is trying to define and enforce a distribution policy = within the
license.  This is a strange idea. Imagine what = mess it would be
if the Linux kernel imposed the same restrictions on = system calls
?-) Instead a specification was issued
(http://www.opengr= oup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/) to encourage the
necessary standardization and uniformity. Defining a = standard
interface and behaviour is a complex matter that can = hardly be
implemented by a license.

Savannah will not host a project under the LPPL. In = my
understanding nothing prevents you from releasing = your project
under the GNU GPL.

------------
Personnally, I'm absolutely not conviced by thoses = arguments.

For a reason or another, it could be usefull to modify = a file and
distribute it for a particular audience, without = changing is name
for compatibily reasons.

Those compatibilities reasons evoqued by the latex = project seems
to me nonsense: no one can forbid me to write a = book.cls, from
scratch, that would be incompatible with the standard = book.cls.

But I think we should host LPPL files since the = incompability
with the GPL is not a major incompability: if we = rename the file,
we can do anything we could do with a GPL file. = Renaming a file
can be painy but it's possible to do in any case. So, = in any
case, if we what, we can do what we want in the GPL = way with a
LPPL file.
</quote>

If somebody wants to continue the discussion, they are = welcome to
do so.

Best regards
    Martin
--
          &nbs= p;         http://www.tm.oneiros.de

------_=_NextPart_001_01C22682.4E3CB300--