Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:56:39 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6FLuDWi017822 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:56:14 +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 g6FLkpWK015655; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:46:51 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C22C4A.7F048580" 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 g6F5l6Gm024602; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:47:05 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5894 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:47:05 +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 g6FLl4rU031087 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:47:04 +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 g6FLjwT8003738 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:45:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [212.227.126.162] (helo=mrelayng1.schlund.de) by moutng1.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #2) id 17UDfI-0005AH-00; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:45:56 +0200 Received: from [80.129.0.26] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng1.schlund.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17UDfH-00061f-00; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:45:56 +0200 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id g6FLjq405666; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:45:52 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20020715204657.GS15546@deadbeast.net> References: <200207042108.g64L8649017884@diziet.clawpaws.net> <20020714195323.GA18502@molehole.dyndns.org> <15667.9629.854453.790551@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <15667.11609.349130.62877@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <20020715204657.GS15546@deadbeast.net> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jul 2002 21:56:39.0227 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F2728B0:01C22C4A] 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: Motivations; proposed alternative license (was Re: LaTeX PublicProject License, Version 1.3 (DRAFT)) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:45:52 +0100 Message-ID: A<15667.17040.358381.710374@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Motivations; proposed alternative license (was Re: LaTeX PublicProject License, Version 1.3 (DRAFT)) Thread-Index: AcIsSn9BGwAKDJjpR9K0p4MswvtI3Q== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4294 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22C4A.7F048580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Branden Robinson writes: > How do you propose to enforce a license that restricts people from > modifying files on their own systems, and distributes only among a > private group of individuals? I don't have a proposition for that. but LPPL wasn't written originally = (or ever) to enforce things legally, it was written to codify what the = majority of the LATeX community understood as an important set of goals but again, there is one major miss-statement in your sentence. we don't restrict people from modifying files, we only ask them to do it in a way = that is helps everybody (including them in the long run). > > > the problem is that prior to LPPL (which is now in use for a number = of years) > > many people were not even aware that they do something "wrong" to = the community > > and their local users. now most of them are (at least within the = LaTeX > > community) > > There are more methods than just forbiddance to achieve education. the fact that in the "free software world" but outside LaTeX the = importance of the goals aren't seen, as well as the fact that codifying those goals improved the situation within the LaTeX community a lot makes us believe = that our approach in that particular situation is better. > > > > No, I do not believe this is a good > > > argument for making a package unfree. > > > > it would certainly a bad reason to make a package unfree. my claim = is that it > > isn't! > > It appears that Debian's consensus is that forbidding the renaming of > files is too large a stick to achieve your goal of notification of > deviation from a standard. i understand that there are a large number of people (who work with = other type of free software) that do not like the fact that we preserve some rights = of the users of LaTeX as well as giving them the freedom to do = modifications. It is certainly (a bit) more work to rename a file rather than to simply = change it, but while I concur with you that for stuff which is essentially = local to my environment this is fine (and thus something like GPL or whatever is appropriate) for the benefit of LaTeX as a freely extensible and = changeable system for exchange of information it is not. > Requirements of notification of modification in original source code = and > in program diagnostic output are perfectly acceptable under the DFSG; > badging or watermarking the generated document while forbidding the > removal of same would not be. sorry, you lost me. what exactly is there that would not be acceptable? > There may be other means of notifying the user that he's running a > hot-rodded component; we'd be more than happy to work with you to = think > of some. if you manage to do that I would have no qualms to change to different = system or license, but not if that means the user has to read through = potentially thousand of source files to find a file that makes his document work differently on his site than on others. > G. Branden Robinson | If you make people think = they're > Debian GNU/Linux | thinking, they'll love you; = but if > branden@debian.org | you really make them think, = they'll > http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hate you. not sure i can get you on your motto, let's see :-) frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22C4A.7F048580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Motivations; proposed alternative license (was Re: LaTeX = PublicProject License, Version 1.3 (DRAFT))

Branden Robinson writes:

 > How do you propose to enforce a license = that restricts people from
 > modifying files on their own systems, and = distributes only among a
 > private group of individuals?

I don't have a proposition for that. but LPPL wasn't = written originally (or
ever) to enforce things legally, it was written to = codify what the majority of
the LATeX community understood as an important set of = goals

but again, there is one major miss-statement in your = sentence.  we don't
restrict people from modifying files, we only ask = them to do it in a way that
is helps everybody (including them in the long = run).
 >
 > > the problem is that prior to LPPL = (which is now in use for a number of years)
 > > many people were not even aware that = they do something "wrong" to the community
 > > and their local users. now most of = them are (at least within the LaTeX
 > > community)
 >
 > There are more methods than just = forbiddance to achieve education.

the fact that in the "free software world" = but outside LaTeX the importance
of the goals aren't seen, as well as the fact that = codifying those goals
improved the situation within the LaTeX community a = lot makes us believe that
our approach in that particular situation is = better.

 >
 > >  > No, I do not believe this = is a good
 > >  > argument for making a = package unfree.
 > >
 > > it would certainly a bad reason to = make a package unfree. my claim is that it
 > > isn't!
 >
 > It appears that Debian's consensus is that = forbidding the renaming of
 > files is too large a stick to achieve your = goal of notification of
 > deviation from a standard.

i understand that there are a large number of people = (who work with other type
of free software) that do not like the fact that we = preserve some rights of
the users of LaTeX as well as giving them  the = freedom to do modifications. It
is certainly (a bit) more work to rename a file = rather than to simply change
it, but while I concur with you that for stuff which = is essentially local to
my environment this is fine (and thus something like = GPL or whatever is
appropriate) for the benefit of LaTeX as a freely = extensible and changeable
system for exchange of information it is not.

 > Requirements of notification of = modification in original source code and
 > in program diagnostic output are perfectly = acceptable under the DFSG;
 > badging or watermarking the generated = document while forbidding the
 > removal of same would not be.

sorry, you lost me. what exactly is there that would = not be acceptable?

 > There may be other means of notifying the = user that he's running a
 > hot-rodded component; we'd be more than = happy to work with you to think
 > of some.

if you manage to do that I would have no qualms to = change to different system
or license, but not if that means the user has to = read through potentially
thousand of source files to find a file that makes = his document work
differently on his site than on others.

 > G. Branden = Robinson           = ;     |    If you make people think = they're
 > Debian = GNU/Linux          &nbs= p;        |    = thinking, they'll love you; but if
 > = branden@debian.org         &= nbsp;       |    you really = make them think, they'll
 > http://people.debian.org/~bra= nden/ |    hate you.

not sure i can get you on your motto, let's see = :-)

frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C22C4A.7F048580--