Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:51:42 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6AKp9Wi001938 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:51:10 +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 g6AKfCWK004576; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:41:12 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C22853.9828C300" 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 g6A2GmGV000312; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:42:29 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 4711 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:42:29 +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 g6AKgTxD030316 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:42:29 +0200 Received: from moutng3.kundenserver.de (moutng3.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.177]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6AKfAWK004570 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:41:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng0.kundenserver.de) by moutng3.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #2) id 17SOGl-00013Z-00; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:41:03 +0200 Received: from [80.129.4.232] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng0.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17SOGk-0005FI-00; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:41:02 +0200 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id g6AKbmZ31400; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:37:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200207101517.g6AFH7Vn027688@diziet.clawpaws.net> References: <200207101517.g6AFH7Vn027688@diziet.clawpaws.net> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2002 20:51:42.0276 (UTC) FILETIME=[9852E040:01C22853] 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: [Denis Barbier: LPPL & Translations] Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:37:47 +0100 Message-ID: A<15660.39707.773564.303438@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: [Denis Barbier: LPPL & Translations] Thread-Index: AcIoU5hw+UTbyy1aTImfUGpV6a4d9A== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4272 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22853.9828C300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > DWN make me read your RFC about LPPL. > I had been involved in a translation effort to make LaTeX base = classes > accessible for French users. We then translated many *.dtx files. > Of course we only translated comments and never changed source code, > but they are merged in a single file. > AFAICT this is forbidden by the LPPL, since we did not rename classes > (which would not make sense). it would not be allowed by LPPL if the resulting dtx file doesn't get a = new name. But it wouldn't be a problem to use a different name for the translated = file as there is no need for generating the code from that file. The .dtx = files if you look at them from the "english" text point of view (well or whatever language they are written in) are documentation i.e. they are providing "examples" illuminating the arguments set out in the text. It makes absolutely sense (sometimes at least, if you have an audience :-) to = translate such documentation, but at the same time it makes sense to have such translations side by side available and what better (and easier) way is = there than to use different names? > If I am not clear, please let me know and I will explain again what = the > problem is. please do, what exactly is the problem if you produce fr_classes.dtx, = from classes.dtx , say? frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22853.9828C300 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [Denis Barbier: LPPL & Translations]

 > DWN make me read your RFC about = LPPL.
 > I had been involved in a translation = effort to make LaTeX base classes
 > accessible for French users.  We then = translated many *.dtx files.
 > Of course we only translated comments and = never changed source code,
 > but they are merged in a single = file.
 > AFAICT this is forbidden by the LPPL, = since we did not rename classes
 > (which would not make sense).

it would not be allowed by LPPL if the resulting dtx = file doesn't get a new
name.

But it wouldn't be a problem to use a different name = for the translated file
as there is no need for generating the code from that = file. The .dtx files if
you look at them from the "english" text = point of view (well or whatever
language they are written in) are documentation i.e. = they are providing
"examples" illuminating the arguments set = out in the text. It makes
absolutely sense (sometimes at least, if you have an = audience :-) to translate
such documentation, but at the same time it makes = sense to have such
translations side by side available and what better = (and easier) way is there
than to use different names?

 > If I am not clear, please let me know and I = will explain again what the
 > problem is.

please do, what exactly is the problem if you produce = fr_classes.dtx, from
classes.dtx , say?


frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C22853.9828C300--