Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:17:23 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6BBGqWi004194 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:16:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C228CC.87686380" 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 g6BAtRWK009364; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:55:27 +0200 (MET DST) 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 g6ANGR8B031196; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:56:42 +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 4524 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:56:42 +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 g6BAugrU002699 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:56:42 +0200 Received: from wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk (IDENT:89G5Hj+0/fX6j9U61lBYKf5HooPB1oky@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.0.15]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6BAtOWK009358 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:55:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pallas.cl.cam.ac.uk ([128.232.8.88] helo=cl.cam.ac.uk ident=rf) by wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.092 #1) id 17SbbY-0006nq-00 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:55:24 +0100 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:08:44 BST." <20020711110844.D2564@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2002 11:17:23.0884 (UTC) FILETIME=[87EF46C0:01C228CC] 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: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:55:23 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org Thread-Index: AcIozIgH3CyFPVyPS0aqT6GlyIki2A== From: "Robin Fairbairns" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4277 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C228CC.87686380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable timothy murphy wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 10:14:30PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > > 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 GPL/LaTeX issue was evidently settled long ago, > and I wouldn't like to re-open an old hornet's nest, > but I've seen you refer several times to the difference in kind or = type > between LaTeX and GPL-ed programs. > > I don't really see this difference. > If someone put out a new version of stdio.h , > it seems to me it would cause exactly the same kind of chaos > as if they put out a new version of article.cls . except that people typically don't, much. i've certainly observed the effects of a broken stdio.h, but it didn't last long. > I've never come across rival versions of, say, Linux kernel files -- > except in different versions of the kernel. > > Does this danger actually arise in practice? not now. the purpose of latex2e was to wrap up the multiple incompatible versions of latex that existed by 1994, and to make a maintainable whole. it really was the case, back then, that a document for "my" latex might very well not work with "your" latex, and the problem could not be solved by mere addition of .sty files. the licence expresses the project's intention that latex should not slip into such a messy state again. as i've said before, if latex can't be used between collaborating people (notably between author an publisher), it's nothing. there are plenty of competing formats for such interchange. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C228CC.87686380 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org

timothy murphy wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 10:14:30PM +0200, Frank = Mittelbach wrote:
> > 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 GPL/LaTeX issue was evidently settled long = ago,
> and I wouldn't like to re-open an old hornet's = nest,
> but I've seen you refer several times to the = difference in kind or type
> between LaTeX and GPL-ed programs.
>
> I don't really see this difference.
> If someone put out a new version of stdio.h = ,
> it seems to me it would cause exactly the same = kind of chaos
> as if they put out a new version of article.cls = .

except that people typically don't, much.  i've = certainly observed the
effects of a broken stdio.h, but it didn't last = long.

> I've never come across rival versions of, say, = Linux kernel files --
> except in different versions of the = kernel.
>
> Does this danger actually arise in = practice?

not now.  the purpose of latex2e was to wrap up = the multiple
incompatible versions of latex that existed by 1994, = and to make a
maintainable whole.

it really was the case, back then, that a document for = "my" latex
might very well not work with "your" latex, = and the problem could not
be solved by mere addition of .sty files.

the licence expresses the project's intention that = latex should not
slip into such a messy state again.

as i've said before, if latex can't be used between = collaborating
people (notably between author an publisher), it's = nothing.  there are
plenty of competing formats for such = interchange.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C228CC.87686380--