Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:39:56 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6GMdWWi021671 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:39:32 +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 g6GMLMWK017741; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:21:22 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C22D19.B55D0600" 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 g6GM04sY006287; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:22:25 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 7354 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:22:24 +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 g6GMMOrU006511 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:22:24 +0200 Received: from moutng3.kundenserver.de (moutng3.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.177]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6GMLKWK017733 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:21:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng0.kundenserver.de) by moutng3.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #2) id 17Uah7-0004pC-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:21:21 +0200 Received: from [80.129.5.225] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng0.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17Uah6-0003US-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:21:20 +0200 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id g6GML4W32699; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:21:04 +0200 Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jul 2002 22:39:56.0537 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5AEF690:01C22D19] 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: forwarded message from Walter Landry Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:21:04 +0100 Message-ID: A<15668.40016.278313.982907@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: forwarded message from Walter Landry Thread-Index: AcItGbXN7yzsmevzTjGaeZYsSocOMg== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4307 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22D19.B55D0600 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C22D19.B55D0600" ------_=_NextPart_002_01C22D19.B55D0600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: forwarded message ------_=_NextPart_002_01C22D19.B55D0600 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ------_=_NextPart_002_01C22D19.B55D0600-- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22D19.B55D0600 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C22D0A.62C81D80@nummer-3.proteosys>; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:50:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <15668.29885.519451.697225@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_003_01C22D0A.62C81D80" References: <15667.17040.358381.710374@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <20020716085602.GX15546@deadbeast.net> <15668.29885.519451.697225@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Return-Path: X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-perl11-milter (http://amavis.org/) Envelope-to: smtp@mittelbach-online.de delivery-date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:45:22 +0200 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Motivations; proposed alternative license Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:44:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20020716.134423.74757759.wlandry@ucsd.edu> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Walter Landry" To: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_003_01C22D0A.62C81D80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Frank Mittelbach wrote: > So far I have seen the comments by Jeff (who goes in a lot of detail > through the license, for which i would like to thank him, and to > which i intend to get back) but other than that, all I heard so far > and repeatedly heard is "we don't like that you use clause 4 and > therefore it is a license acceptable by us" (though in more > elaborate words). Well, there were my comments that preventing the modification or removal of .ins files goes beyond what clause 4 allows. I even gave an example where it might be completely appropriate to do such a thing. The message should be in the debian-legal archive. In that message I also said that that was the only thing that definitely makes it non-free. Now I think that the renaming requirement also goes beyond what is allowed in clause 4. Specifically, clause 4 says that, as a special case, you can allow changes only as patches to the original program. It doesn't say anything about what kind of restrictions you can put on those patches, and Debian traditionally has not allowed any additional restrictions. Telling people that a patch must have a certain form (i.e. must rename any file that it modifies) is an additional restriction that Debian can not live with. Because of both practical and ideological reasons. In a sense, I feel your pain. You want everyone's installation of Latex to be the same to facilitate interoperability. However, free software means that you give up some measure of control over your creation. RMS lost a lot of control when egcs became the official gcc, and I'm sure the Emacs-XEmacs split didn't make him happy either. But he still is willing to give other people control. Here is a hypothetical. Let's say that someone wants to add support for Klingon into Latex. So they hack something together which, by necessity, changes a few standard files, and it works for them without breaking anything else. You reject the patch because it isn't really a good i18n solution, it only works for Klingon. You also think that Klingon is a silly thing to add support for, so you'll probably never add it in. However, for the people interested in writing Klingon (e.g. Hollywood screen writers and trek fan fiction writers), this is a good solution. In this case, you are preventing people from having seamless support for Klingon. Regards, Walter Landry wlandry@ucsd.edu ------_=_NextPart_003_01C22D0A.62C81D80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Motivations; proposed alternative license

Frank Mittelbach = <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org> wrote:
> So far I have seen the comments by Jeff (who = goes in a lot of detail
> through the license, for which i would like to = thank him, and to
> which i intend to get back) but other than that, = all I heard so far
> and repeatedly heard is "we don't like that = you use clause 4 and
> therefore it is a license acceptable by us" = (though in more
> elaborate words).

Well, there were my comments that preventing the = modification or
removal of .ins files goes beyond what clause 4 = allows.  I even gave
an example where it might be completely appropriate = to do such a
thing.  The message should be in the = debian-legal archive.

In that message I also said that that was the only = thing that
definitely makes it non-free.  Now I think that = the renaming
requirement also goes beyond what is allowed in = clause 4.
Specifically, clause 4 says that, as a special case, = you can allow
changes only as patches to the original = program.  It doesn't say
anything about what kind of restrictions you can put = on those patches,
and Debian traditionally has not allowed any = additional restrictions.
Telling people that a patch must have a certain form = (i.e. must rename
any file that it modifies) is an additional = restriction that Debian
can not live with.  Because of both practical = and ideological reasons.

In a sense, I feel your pain.  You want = everyone's installation of
Latex to be the same to facilitate = interoperability.  However, free
software means that you give up some measure of = control over your
creation.  RMS lost a lot of control when egcs = became the official
gcc, and I'm sure the Emacs-XEmacs split didn't make = him happy either.
But he still is willing to give other people = control.

Here is a hypothetical.  Let's say that someone = wants to add support
for Klingon into Latex.  So they hack something = together which, by
necessity, changes a few standard files, and it works = for them without
breaking anything else.  You reject the patch = because it isn't really
a good i18n solution, it only works for = Klingon.  You also think that
Klingon is a silly thing to add support for, so = you'll probably never
add it in.  However, for the people interested = in writing Klingon
(e.g. Hollywood screen writers and trek fan fiction = writers), this is
a good solution.  In this case, you are = preventing people from having
seamless support for Klingon.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu

------_=_NextPart_003_01C22D0A.62C81D80-- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22D19.B55D0600--