Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 17 Jul 2002 02:05:52 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6H05SWi021859 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 02:05:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C22D25.B6943000" Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6GNqJT8001363; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 01:52:20 +0200 (MET DST) 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 g6GM04t4006287; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 01:53:15 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 7380 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 01:53:15 +0200 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 g6GNrErU006732 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 01:53:14 +0200 Received: from bilbo.localnet (root@pcp742276pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net [68.49.144.202]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6GNqBT8001344 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 01:52:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from bilbo.localnet (boris@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bilbo.localnet (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with ESMTP id g6GNq9EC031042 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL); Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:52:09 -0400 Received: (from boris@localhost) by bilbo.localnet (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) id g6GNq9Ow031038; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:52:09 -0400 Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2002 00:05:52.0743 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7058F70:01C22D25] X-Authentication-Warning: bilbo.localnet: boris set sender to borisv@lk.net using -f X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.6 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: User's thoughts about LPPL Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:52:09 +0100 Message-ID: A<200207162352.g6GNq9Ow031038@bilbo.localnet> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: User's thoughts about LPPL Thread-Index: AcItJbdEf0y50N11SFWfLds59FWjgw== From: "Boris Veytsman" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4310 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22D25.B6943000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings: I apologize for butting in in the ongoing discussion. Moreover, I am neither a lawyer nor a LaTeX3 team member (a couple of my programs are in the distribution, both under GPL and LPPL). Nevertheless I hope that my thoughts might be of use. I am a Debian and LaTeX user, so the present misunderstanding between Debian and LaTeX3 concerns me a lot. I think Debian team overlooks a couple of points. 1. Debian already uses software other than LaTeX under the "no changes unless the files are renamed" clause. This is Don Knuth's TeX and MF suite *and* the relevant fonts. Let me remind you that the licensing of TeX is rather peculiar: A. The program itself is in the public domain -- you can do whatever you want with the code or its parts B. The *name* TeX is reserved for Knuth's program. If you program is called TeX, it must satisfy triptest. You can NOT correct bugs in this program, you cannot do Debian QA for it -- you either take it as is or rename it. The same is going for Knuth's Computer Modern fonts. You can do whatever you want with the lettershapes -- as long as you do not call your product CM. If Debian wants to declare (and presumably delete from the main distribution) the software under this license, it would be hypocrisy to keep TeX and fonts. I wonder whether people realize that this means a complete disaster for the GNU info system? GNU info is prepared with a program called texinfo, which is basically a special TeX format. 2. Debian people seem not to realize that LaTeX (and TeX) is BOTH a program and a language -- and a language requires standardization. The nightmare of incompatible HTML dialects proves this point well. Yes, standards limit freedom in some way. However, do you really want your grocer to have a freedom to call 800g a kilogram? As a LaTeX user I have two requirements: A. Standardization. I want a LaTeX document to be compiled and printed exactly in the same way at my desk, at my publisher's desk, at my student's computers etc UNLESS I or students or publishers want otherwise. B. Flexibility. I want a possibility to completely change appearance of any document I received -- IF I WANT IT. The present state of LaTeX satisfies these requirements. Due to LPPL I am assured that my documents will look exactly the same if their source code is unchanged. Due to the fact that LaTeX is a macro language, I can redefine ANY command in any document. Suppose a user is near blind and wants all documents to be printed in a big fontsize. He can create a program (in latexese called style) bigsize.sty and add to all his documents a line \usepackage{bigsize}. By doing this he makes a decision about document formatting. He is free to do this under LPPL. On the other hand, the authors of the documents know that the formatting of their works is exactly same UNLESS a user made an explicit decision to change. To summarize: I think LPPL strikes a necessary balance between standardization and flexibility. This balance was tested by 20+ years of TeX, which is licensed under exactly same conditions. -- Good luck -Boris These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format. After unzipping, these files can be viewed in any text editor, including all versions of Microsoft Word, WordPad, and Microsoft Word Viewer -- From Micro$oft ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22D25.B6943000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User's thoughts about LPPL

Greetings:

I apologize for butting in in the ongoing discussion. = Moreover, I am
neither a lawyer nor a LaTeX3 team member (a couple = of my programs are
in the distribution,  both under GPL and LPPL). = Nevertheless I hope
that my thoughts might be of use.

I am a Debian and LaTeX user, so the present = misunderstanding between
Debian and LaTeX3 concerns me a lot.

I think Debian team overlooks a couple of = points.

1. Debian already uses software other than LaTeX under = the "no changes
   unless the files are renamed" = clause. This is Don Knuth's TeX and
   MF suite *and* the relevant fonts. Let = me remind you that the
   licensing of TeX is rather = peculiar:

   A. The program itself is in the public = domain -- you can do
   whatever you want with the code or its = parts

   B. The *name* TeX is reserved for Knuth's = program. If you program
   is called TeX, it must satisfy triptest. = You can NOT correct bugs
   in this program, you cannot do Debian QA = for it -- you either take
   it as is or rename it.

   The same is going for Knuth's Computer = Modern fonts. You can do
   whatever you want with the lettershapes = -- as long as you do not
   call your product CM.

   If Debian wants to declare (and = presumably delete from the main
   distribution) the software under this = license, it would be
   hypocrisy to keep TeX and fonts. I = wonder whether people realize
   that this means a complete disaster for = the GNU info system? GNU
   info is prepared with a program called = texinfo, which is basically
   a special TeX format.



2. Debian people seem not to realize that LaTeX (and = TeX) is BOTH a
   program and a language -- and a language = requires
   standardization. The nightmare of = incompatible HTML dialects proves
   this point well. Yes, standards limit = freedom in some way. However,
   do you really want your grocer to have a = freedom to call 800g a
   kilogram?

   As a LaTeX user I have two = requirements:

   A. Standardization. I want a LaTeX = document to be compiled and
   printed exactly in the same way at my = desk, at my publisher's desk,
   at my student's computers etc UNLESS I = or students or publishers
   want otherwise.

   B. Flexibility. I want a possibility to = completely change
   appearance of any document I received -- = IF I WANT IT.

   The present state of LaTeX satisfies = these requirements. Due to
   LPPL I am assured that my documents will = look exactly the same if
   their source code is unchanged. Due to = the fact that LaTeX is a
   macro language, I can redefine ANY = command in any document.

   Suppose a user is near blind and wants = all documents to be printed
   in a big fontsize. He can create a = program (in latexese called
   style) bigsize.sty and add to all his = documents a line
   \usepackage{bigsize}. By doing this he = makes a decision about
   document formatting. He is free to do = this under LPPL. On the other
   hand, the authors of the documents know = that the formatting of
   their works is exactly same UNLESS a = user made an explicit decision
   to change.

To summarize: I think LPPL strikes a necessary balance = between
standardization and flexibility. This balance was = tested by 20+ years
of TeX, which is licensed under exactly same = conditions.

--
Good luck

-Boris

These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format. = After
unzipping, these files can be viewed in any text = editor, including
all versions of Microsoft Word, WordPad, and = Microsoft Word Viewer
        -- From = Micro$oft

------_=_NextPart_001_01C22D25.B6943000--