Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:28:35 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6AKS2Wi001872 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:28:03 +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 g6AKIET8025465; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:18:14 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C22850.5D715B80" 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 g6A2GmGH000312; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:18:59 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 4696 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:18:59 +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 g6AKIxxD030251 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:18:59 +0200 Received: from moutng0.schlund.de (moutng0.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.170]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6AKHeWK001098 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:17:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng0.kundenserver.de) by moutng0.schlund.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 17SNu7-0005mI-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:17:39 +0200 Received: from [80.129.4.232] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng0.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17SNu6-0003v7-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:17:39 +0200 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id g6AKEUj31285; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:14:30 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200207092040.g69KeP49020522@diziet.clawpaws.net> References: <20020708123501.B23884@lucien.kn-bremen.de> <20020709162419.A1284@lucien.kn-bremen.de> <200207092040.g69KeP49020522@diziet.clawpaws.net> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2002 20:28:35.0221 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D931450:01C22850] x-mime-autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de id g6AKIxxD030252 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: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:14:30 +0100 Message-ID: A<15660.38310.276619.162527@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org Thread-Index: AcIoUF3oDg8G3chsR0yphlic0sLahw== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4271 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22850.5D715B80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable C.M. Connelly writes: > "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. but he doesn't give a reason for it other than > Defining a standard interface and behaviour is > LD> a complex matter that can hardly be implemented by a > LD> license. and there he is just voicing an opinion. fact is that latex software = can, has successfully done so (via LPPL) and through this process has resolved a = very difficult situation with a lot of incompatibilities within the language definition. that this model my not be appropriate in other situation is certainly = true but what does this prove or point out? > 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.) certainly worth looking at it. and this was exactly after looking at = this approach as an option (i.e. to put LaTeX under GPL) that we came to the conclusion that it is not the right approach for software of a type like LaTeX. > 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 Claire, stop right here please!!!! where does that "non-free" comes from? I repeat: a) all that is in LPPL is not in conflict with the OSI or Debian = guideline (unless proven otherwise) b) especially the question about requesting a name change as part of a modification is _part_ of Debian + OSI (as one possible approach) so the fact that Loic Dachary and others don't like it is not something = from which "non-free" > 2. Develop an open standard that defines the behavior of the > system in a testable way as sensible approach in the right context and the right environment --- impractial and not resulting in the desired results for the users (who = also have rights!) with something like LaTeX. For the LaTeX kernel itself it = could have been the model together with a suitable test set, but LaTeX is the combination of a large environment which is in that form untestable (in reality) but kept sane because of LPPL --- while being free for change andaddition. but again, that is not the question really, the question is is LaTeX = free software by some standards and that wasn't touched by this argument in = my opinin. frank ps the only real argument that I saw so far was the problem of the = license allowing additions which may make something under LPPL due to further restrictions in individual files unfree --- that is a fair argument and = it is precisely the argument that I was removing by proposing to remove/change = that part. which by the way is why I found Martin's attempt to start a = discussion on LPPL 1.2 not really helpful (especially not if it is not backed up by arguing the case) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22850.5D715B80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org

C.M. Connelly writes:
 > "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.

but he doesn't give a reason for it other than

         > = Defining a standard interface and behaviour is
 >     LD> a complex = matter that can hardly be implemented by a
 >     LD> = license.

and there he is just voicing an opinion. fact is that = latex software can, has
successfully done so (via LPPL) and through this = process has resolved a very
difficult situation with a lot of incompatibilities = within the language
definition.

that this model my not be appropriate in other = situation is certainly true but
what does this prove or point out?

 > 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.)

certainly worth looking at it. and this was exactly = after looking at this
approach as an option (i.e. to put LaTeX under GPL) = that we came to the
conclusion that it is not the right approach for = software of a type like
LaTeX.


 > 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

Claire, stop right here please!!!!

where does that "non-free" comes from? I = repeat:

a) all that is in LPPL is not in conflict with the OSI = or Debian guideline
(unless proven otherwise)

b) especially the question about requesting a name = change as part of a
modification is _part_ of Debian + OSI (as one = possible approach)
so the fact that Loic Dachary and others don't like = it is not something from
which "non-free"

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

as sensible approach in the right context and the = right environment ---
impractial and not resulting in the desired results = for the users (who also
have rights!) with something like LaTeX. For the = LaTeX kernel itself it could
have been the model together with a suitable test = set, but LaTeX is the
combination of a large environment which is in that = form untestable (in
reality) but  kept sane because of LPPL --- = while being free for change
andaddition.


but again, that is not the question really, the = question is is LaTeX free
software by some standards and that wasn't touched by = this argument in my
opinin.

frank

ps the only real argument that I saw so far was the = problem of the license
allowing additions which may make something under = LPPL due to further
restrictions in individual files unfree --- that is a = fair argument and it is
precisely the argument that I was removing by = proposing to remove/change that
part. which by the way is why I found Martin's = attempt to start a discussion
on LPPL 1.2 not really helpful (especially not if it = is not backed up by
arguing the case)

------_=_NextPart_001_01C22850.5D715B80--