Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:31:25 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6BCUsWi004451 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:30:55 +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 g6BCFrWK029443; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:15:53 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C228D6.DF0BCC80" 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 g6ANGRAf031196; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:16:57 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 4636 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:16:57 +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 g6BCGvrU003668 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:16:57 +0200 Received: from naf1.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de (naf1.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.161.197]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6BCFdWK029347 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:15:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from na19.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de (na19 [134.2.161.200]) by naf1.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6BCFaM28664; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:15:36 +0200 (MEST) Received: (from oliver@localhost) by na19.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6BCFZL25744; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:15:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20020711110844.D2564@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 7.01 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2002 12:31:25.0979 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFA12EB0:01C228D6] X-Authentication-Warning: na19.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de: oliver set sender to oliver@na.uni-tuebingen.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: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:15:35 +0100 Message-ID: A<15661.30439.544921.405874@na.uni-tuebingen.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org Thread-Index: AcIo1t+2+1F8C0EFRdeNCrte8nNEDw== From: "Marcel Oliver" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4279 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C228D6.DF0BCC80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Javier Bezos writes: > (and even if illegal, many people is modifying the packages > [as developers] because that's the simplest way to make a > little change [as users]; if that's made legal, I don't know > what could happen). Robin Fairbairns writes: > the licence expresses the project's intention that latex should not > slip into such a messy state again. I really did not intend to get into this discussion, as I am definitely not interested in legal details. However, I keep getting these emails where otherwise reasonable people argue on how to legislate away technical issues. So let's analyze the situation: First, how did the LaTeX 2.09 mess arise in the first place? 1. LaTeX was essentially abandoned by its original author. 2. The LaTeX core did have a number of obvious and highly visible deficiencies that were crying out for improvement. 3. LaTeX was typically installed on Unix in an academic environment by system administrators who knew too much for their own good. No comprehensive TeX/LaTeX distributions existed and many packages had to be downloaded and installed individually. Has this situation changed? 1. There is a core LaTeX team slowly working towards a new release. There is a semi-active mailing list and project members do respond to email. 2. The most glaring deficiencies were fixed with LaTeX2e, and a number of important packages where added to the core. (IMHO there is still a strong need to extend the core to promote further standardization of important tools.) 3. Any LaTeX installation I have seen in the last five or six years is based on teTeX (with one or two exceptions where the installation was old and so broken that the only way to fix it was a rm -rf * plus a fresh teTeX reinstall). Most of the time, people don't even compile teTeX any more, but get the binaries from distributors like SuSe and Redhat, who have a conservative approach to patches because they know too well how easily they can end up in a maintenance nightmare. Will a license restriction on modification without renaming make any difference? - As far as modifications on my private installation goes, no way. I have done things on my computer that are deemed illegal by organizations having much deeper pockets than the LaTeX team. In other words, I would not hesitate a second before modifying a file if I WANTED to do it. Any such prohibition is akin to outlawing various sexual practices... - On the other hand I am well aware that it's not a good idea to shoot up my own LaTeX installation. So anything that raises peoples' awareness about the issue will help. - As for distribution: There have been relatively few changes to core LaTeX and important packages in recent years, so modifications would be rather visible. Slipping an unauthorized file into an archive seems more akin to planting a trojan - something, whether technical illegal or not, people know they should not do but do anyway for reasons of either extreme stupidity or maliciousness. Neither can simply be legislated away. - A serious fork of LaTeX is unlikely to happen as long as the package is actively and competently maintained. In fact, one could argue that the prospect of forking will keep the LaTeX team on its toes... Conclusion: We are talking about a non-issue here. Suggestion (don't flame me for this, I really don't care that much): Choose a license that people will recognize (such as the GPL) where it doesn't matter that nobody ever reads a license. Then write a text that is very concise, technically accurate, but not legally binding explaining: - That it is not a good idea (and why) to make changes to files without changing their names. - Such modification won't get the blessing of archive maintainers and the LaTeX team. - Saying that the author welcomes suggestions for improvements, giving his/her email address, for inclusion in future releases of the package. Best, Marcel ------_=_NextPart_001_01C228D6.DF0BCC80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org

Javier Bezos writes:
 > (and even if illegal, many people is = modifying the packages
 > [as developers] because that's the = simplest way to make a
 > little change [as users]; if that's made = legal, I don't know
 > what could happen).

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

I really did not intend to get into this discussion, = as I am
definitely not interested in legal details.  = However, I keep getting
these emails where otherwise reasonable people argue = on how to
legislate away technical issues.

So let's analyze the situation:  First, how did = the LaTeX 2.09 mess
arise in the first place?

1. LaTeX was essentially abandoned by its original = author.

2. The LaTeX core did have a number of obvious and = highly visible
   deficiencies that were crying out for = improvement.

3. LaTeX was typically installed on Unix in an = academic environment by
   system administrators who knew too much = for their own good.  No
   comprehensive TeX/LaTeX distributions = existed and many packages had
   to be downloaded and installed = individually.

Has this situation changed?

1. There is a core LaTeX team slowly working towards a = new release.
   There is a semi-active mailing list and = project members do respond
   to email.

2. The most glaring deficiencies were fixed with = LaTeX2e, and a number
   of important packages where added to the = core.  (IMHO there is
   still a strong need to extend the core = to promote further
   standardization of important = tools.)

3. Any LaTeX installation I have seen in the last five = or six years
   is based on teTeX (with one or two = exceptions where the
   installation was old and so broken that = the only way to fix it was
   a rm -rf * plus a fresh teTeX = reinstall).  Most of the time, people
   don't even compile teTeX any more, but = get the binaries from
   distributors like SuSe and Redhat, who = have a conservative approach
   to patches because they know too well = how easily they can end up in
   a maintenance nightmare.

Will a license restriction on modification without = renaming make any
difference?

- As far as modifications on my private installation = goes, no way.  I
  have done things on my computer that are = deemed illegal by
  organizations having much deeper pockets than = the LaTeX team.  In
  other words, I would not hesitate a second = before modifying a file
  if I WANTED to do it.  Any such = prohibition is akin to outlawing
  various sexual practices...

- On the other hand I am well aware that it's not a = good idea to shoot
  up my own LaTeX installation.  So = anything that raises peoples'
  awareness about the issue will help.

- As for distribution: There have been relatively few = changes to core
  LaTeX and important packages in recent years, = so modifications would
  be rather visible.  Slipping an = unauthorized file into an archive
  seems more akin to planting a trojan - = something, whether technical
  illegal or not, people know they should not do = but do anyway for
  reasons of either extreme stupidity or = maliciousness.  Neither can
  simply be legislated away.

- A serious fork of LaTeX is unlikely to happen as = long as the package
  is actively and competently maintained.  = In fact, one could argue
  that the prospect of forking will keep the = LaTeX team on its toes...

Conclusion: We are talking about a non-issue = here.

Suggestion (don't flame me for this, I really don't = care that much):
Choose a license that people will recognize (such as = the GPL) where it
doesn't matter that nobody ever reads a = license.  Then write a text
that is very concise, technically accurate, but not = legally binding
explaining:

- That it is not a good idea (and why) to make changes = to files
  without changing their names.

- Such modification won't get the blessing of archive = maintainers and
  the LaTeX team.

- Saying that the author welcomes suggestions for = improvements, giving
  his/her email address, for inclusion in future = releases of the
  package.

Best,

Marcel

------_=_NextPart_001_01C228D6.DF0BCC80--