Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:02:41 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6BI29Wi005394 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:02:10 +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 g6BHe2WK016188; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:40:02 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C22905.2610B680" 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 g6ANGRJ5031196; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:41:10 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5136 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:41:10 +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 g6BHfArU006114 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:41:10 +0200 Received: from moutng0.schlund.de (moutng0.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.170]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6BHdsT8007952 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:39:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [212.227.126.162] (helo=mrelayng1.schlund.de) by moutng0.schlund.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 17Shuz-00066S-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:39:53 +0200 Received: from [80.129.6.157] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng1.schlund.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17Shuy-0002oZ-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:39:53 +0200 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id g6BHaXQ24262; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:36:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <15661.30439.544921.405874@na.uni-tuebingen.de> References: <20020711110844.D2564@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> <15661.30439.544921.405874@na.uni-tuebingen.de> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2002 18:02:41.0582 (UTC) FILETIME=[266984E0:01C22905] 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 18:36:32 +0100 Message-ID: A<15661.49696.970761.893782@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org Thread-Index: AcIpBSad345beZxGQdOWwvm9ne2g3g== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4284 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22905.2610B680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Marcel Oliver writes: > I really did not intend to get into this discussion, as I am > definitely not interested in legal details. However, I keep getting i don't want to get into this discussion either :-) in fact i think it is arguing on the wrong level. in my opinion two or = three things should be done a) have the Debian people actually tell us where in their opinion the = license is in conflict with the debian rules for free software (if in any) b) if necessary (and possible) to adapt LPPL to to fit the debian rules = to gat this issue out of the rumours c) resubmit the license to OSI a) is hopefully under way with Claire's help and i'm happy enough to = defend the license (as well as thinking about any given arguments) and = potentially do b) c) could come thereafter. I don't have any intention to fight on other fronts like savannah myself = this could come after the above if at all. havying said all that ... > So let's analyze the situation: First, how did the LaTeX 2.09 mess > arise in the first place? okay let's analyze ... > > 1. LaTeX was essentially abandoned by its original author. incorrect assumption (and mathematically from FALSE follows ANYTHING = :-). i can say this with some authority as I'm involved in LaTeX maintainence = since 1990 and have taken over LaTeX from Leslie. > 2. The LaTeX core did have a number of obvious and highly visible > deficiencies that were crying out for improvement. TRUE, but that wasn't the problem, the problem was the way such = improvemnt where built and integrated (not to speak of the many non-improvements) > 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. TRUE here the situation has changed (most people don't know anything for = their own good, sadly enough) > 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. and slowly getting into a similar state as Leslie in the early 90th (see = the delay in this years distribution) > 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.) yes > 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. and without LPPL you would find that publishers again promote variants = of article.cls to fit their journal house style... > 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... getting into deep water here... with this confession please do never send in a bug report or ask for = sexual advice (popular see todays bug report :-) > - 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... it is not the fork that I'm afraid of > Conclusion: We are talking about a non-issue here. perhaps, but i don't think so. > 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 what about this one: % This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are = reserved. % Copying of this file is authorized only if (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or = if % (2) you make absolutely no changes to your copy. (The WEB system = provides % for alterations via an auxiliary file; the master file should stay = intact.) % See Appendix H of the WEB manual for hints on how to install this = program. % And see Appendix A of the TRIP manual for details about how to = validate it. what i want to say is, i would welcome a smaller and leaner LPPL without changing its core goals. anyway, can you honnestly saying you know what the perl license says (as = an example)? have you read it? does it follows from your answer (which i = assume is: sorry, thast particular one i don't know exactly) that it should be removed and replaced by GPL? frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22905.2610B680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LPPL under review at savannah.gnu.org

Marcel Oliver writes:
 > I really did not intend to get into this = discussion, as I am
 > definitely not interested in legal = details.  However, I keep getting

i don't want to get into this discussion either = :-)

in fact i think it is arguing on the wrong level. in = my opinion two or three
things should be done

 a) have the Debian people actually tell us where = in their opinion the license
is in conflict with the debian rules for free = software (if in any)

 b) if necessary (and possible) to adapt LPPL to = to fit the debian rules to
 gat this issue out of the rumours

 c) resubmit the license to OSI

a) is hopefully under way with Claire's help and i'm = happy enough to defend
the license (as well as thinking about any given = arguments) and potentially do
b)

c) could come thereafter.


I don't have any intention to fight on other fronts = like savannah myself this
could come after the above if at all.


havying said all that ...

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

okay let's analyze ...

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

incorrect assumption (and mathematically from FALSE = follows ANYTHING :-).
i can say this with some authority as I'm involved in = LaTeX maintainence since
1990 and have taken over LaTeX from Leslie.

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

TRUE, but that wasn't the problem, the problem was the = way such improvemnt
where built and integrated (not to speak of the many = non-improvements)


 > 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.

TRUE here the situation has changed (most people don't = know anything for their
own good, sadly enough)

 > 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.

and slowly getting into a similar state as Leslie in = the early 90th (see the
delay in this years distribution)

 > 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.)

yes

 > 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.

and without LPPL you would find that publishers again = promote variants of
article.cls to fit their journal house = style...

 > 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...

getting into deep water here...

with this confession please do never send in a bug = report or ask for sexual
advice (popular see todays bug report :-)

 > - 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...

it is not the fork that I'm afraid of


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

perhaps, but i don't think so.

 > 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

what about this one:

% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; = all rights are reserved.
% Copying of this file is authorized only if (1) you = are D. E. Knuth, or if
% (2) you make absolutely no changes to your copy. = (The WEB system provides
% for alterations via an auxiliary file; the master = file should stay intact.)
% See Appendix H of the WEB manual for hints on how = to install this program.
% And see Appendix A of the TRIP manual for details = about how to validate it.


what i want to say is, i would welcome a smaller and = leaner LPPL without
changing its core goals.

anyway, can you honnestly saying you know what the = perl license says (as an
example)? have you read it? does it follows from your = answer (which i assume
is: sorry, thast particular one i don't know exactly) = that it should be
removed and replaced by GPL?


frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C22905.2610B680--