Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:19:57 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6BHJPWi005306 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:19:26 +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 g6BGv5WK009341; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:57:05 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C228FF.2DCD5C80" 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 g6ANGRIf031196; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:58:18 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5117 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:58:18 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id g6BGwIrU005920 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:58:18 +0200 Received: from moutng1.kundenserver.de (moutng1.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6BGv2T8002502 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:57:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng0.kundenserver.de) by moutng1.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 17ShFV-0007TU-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:57:01 +0200 Received: from [80.129.6.157] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng0.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17ShFV-00062j-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:57:01 +0200 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id g6BGrgS24058; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:53:42 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20020711110844.D2564@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> References: <20020708123501.B23884@lucien.kn-bremen.de> <20020709162419.A1284@lucien.kn-bremen.de> <200207092040.g69KeP49020522@diziet.clawpaws.net> <15660.38310.276619.162527@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <20020711110844.D2564@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2002 17:19:57.0344 (UTC) FILETIME=[2E01DA00:01C228FF] 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: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:53:41 +0100 Message-ID: A<15661.47125.882943.794875@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org Thread-Index: AcIo/y4m4FCD7CJMQWeY1hh1ADPKyg== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4283 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C228FF.2DCD5C80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Timothy Murphy writes: > 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. okay, will try though I have to drop out from this discussion for a = number of days (so replies might not get answered) > 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 . > I've never come across rival versions of, say, Linux kernel files -- > except in different versions of the kernel. the danger for the "latex kernel" is indeed not that large these days = though in it does exist. a bigger recent example was a TeX distribution (i = don't recall for sure which one, so don't want to commit slander---those who = are on tex-implementors might remember) where somebody thought that the = computer modern fonts have incorrect metric files and "improved" them so that = documents produced different line and page breaks all over the place. now that is according to the simple license by Don Knuth (you are not = allowed to change any file unless you are Don Knuth or give it a new name --- = which by the way is a simplified version of LPPL (and which by the way is an = accepted free license by RMS) not allowed. but coming back to your example: there are a number of big differences between a linux kernel software = and a latex system. a) stuff is much more likely to obviously break if you make = modifications, with LaTeX is often only breaks the possibility to exchange your = documents sucessfully. now while this is very important for the majority of users = it is often of less importance or not thought through by people changing = stuff (see the whole of this discussion) b) more importantly linux is mainly a single user system, ie once it is somewhere in place then fine. in other words even if you change stdio.h = (and get away with it in the sense that it doesn't break your system) then = building a distribution from that is not a problem any more for those who receive it. they can live with it easily because the system does what they want = it to do. if on the other hand you change article.cls (without breaking it in the = sense that it doesn't run) the users receiving it have a big problem because = one of the important features of latex (the ability to exchange documents successfully) has been taken away from them. > Does this danger actually arise in practice? yes. i gave an example above, but i could give many more. frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C228FF.2DCD5C80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org

Timothy Murphy writes:
 > 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.

okay, will try though I have to drop out from this = discussion for a number of
days (so replies might not get answered)

 > 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 .
 > I've never come across rival versions of, = say, Linux kernel files --
 > except in different versions of the = kernel.

the danger for the "latex kernel" is indeed = not that large these days though
in it does exist. a bigger recent example was a TeX = distribution (i don't
recall for sure which one, so don't want to commit = slander---those who are on
tex-implementors might remember) where somebody = thought that the computer
modern fonts have incorrect metric files and = "improved" them so that documents
produced different line and page breaks all over the = place.

now that is according to the simple license by Don = Knuth (you are not allowed
to change any file unless you are Don Knuth or give = it a new name --- which by
the way is a simplified version of LPPL (and which by = the way is an accepted
free license by RMS) not allowed.

but coming back to your example:

 there are a number of big differences between a = linux kernel software and a
 latex system.

a) stuff is much more likely to obviously break if you = make modifications,
 with LaTeX is often only breaks the possibility = to exchange your documents
 sucessfully. now while this is very important = for the majority of users it is
 often of less importance or not thought through = by people changing stuff (see
 the whole of this discussion)

b) more importantly linux is mainly a single user = system, ie once it is
somewhere in place then fine. in other words even if = you change stdio.h (and
get away with it in the sense that it doesn't break = your system) then building
a distribution from that is not a problem any more = for those who receive
it. they can live with it easily because the system = does what they want it to
do.

if on the other hand you change article.cls (without = breaking it in the sense
that it doesn't run) the users receiving it have a = big problem because one of
the important features of latex (the ability to = exchange documents
successfully) has been taken away from them.

 > Does this danger actually arise in = practice?

yes. i gave an example above, but i could give many = more.

frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C228FF.2DCD5C80--