Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:52:44 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g69KqBWi030526 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:52:11 +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 g69KfnT8001809; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:41:49 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2278A.92B37600" 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 g68M04Jp023635; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:42:45 +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 4917 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:42:45 +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 g69KgjxD031535 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:42:45 +0200 Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g69KfMWK018745 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:41:22 +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 avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17S1nQ-0002dg-00; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 16:41:16 -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 g69KeP49020522; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:40:25 -0700 In-Reply-To: Message from Martin Schroeder of "Tue, 09 Jul 2002 16:24:19 +0200." <20020709162419.A1284@lucien.kn-bremen.de> References: <20020708123501.B23884@lucien.kn-bremen.de> <20020709162419.A1284@lucien.kn-bremen.de> Return-Path: X-Mailer: mh-e 6.1; nmh 1.0.4+dev; Emacs 21.2 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jul 2002 20:52:44.0732 (UTC) FILETIME=[932327C0:01C2278A] 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: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 21:40:25 +0100 Message-ID: A<200207092040.g69KeP49020522@diziet.clawpaws.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org Thread-Index: AcInipNHSSVnF7mIQlyi0ybzT46VZg== From: "C.M. Connelly" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4267 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2278A.92B37600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "MS" =3D=3D Martin Schroeder "LD" =3D=3D Loic Dachary LD> I think the LPPL is trying to define and enforce a LD> distribution policy within the license. This is a strange LD> idea. Imagine what mess it would be if the Linux kernel LD> imposed the same restrictions on system calls ?-) Instead LD> a specification was issued LD> (http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/) to LD> encourage the necessary standardization and LD> uniformity. Defining a standard interface and behaviour is LD> a complex matter that can hardly be implemented by a LD> license. MS> "The Single UNIX=AE Specification, Version 2" -- which I MS> find irrelevant here. Yes, the specification is irrelevant, but Loic's point was that a license cannot force standardization; that job has to be left to a group of interested parties who draft a standards document that define what bits make up a complete system, how they interact, their interface, what sort of output they produce, and so on. In other words, he wasn't suggesting you look at the document because it would tell you anything about LaTeX, he was suggesting that the process that produced the document is worth looking at. (And perhaps that the document itself might serve as a model for a LaTeX standard.) The basic idea here is that if you want to keep LaTeX pure, you can take one of two approaches: 1. Impose a restrictive, non-free license that prevents modification of key components 2. Develop an open standard that defines the behavior of the system in a testable way 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_01C2278A.92B37600 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org

"MS" =3D=3D Martin Schroeder = <martin@ONEIROS.DE>
"LD" =3D=3D Loic Dachary  = <loic@gnu.org>

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

    MS> "The Single UNIX=AE = Specification, Version 2" -- which I
    MS> find irrelevant = here.

Yes, the specification is irrelevant, but Loic's point = was that a
license cannot force standardization; that job has to = be left to a
group of interested parties who draft a standards = document that
define what bits make up a complete system, how they = interact,
their interface, what sort of output they produce, = and so on.

In other words, he wasn't suggesting you look at the = document
because it would tell you anything about LaTeX, he = was suggesting
that the process that produced the document is worth = looking at.
(And perhaps that the document itself might serve as = a model for a
LaTeX standard.)

The basic idea here is that if you want to keep LaTeX = pure, you
can take one of two approaches:

   1. Impose a restrictive, non-free license = that prevents
      modification of key = components

   2. Develop an open standard that defines = the behavior of the
      system in a testable = way

   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_01C2278A.92B37600--