Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:50:20 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6HEnvWi024068 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:49:57 +0200 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 g6HETlT8017017; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:29:47 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C22DA1.45925E00" 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 g6GM049m006287; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:30:30 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 8271 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:30:30 +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 g6HEUUrU011257 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:30:30 +0200 Received: from smtp.albany.edu (mail1.csc.albany.edu [169.226.1.133]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6HETTT8016961 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:29:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hilbert.math.albany.edu (hilbert.math.albany.edu [169.226.23.52]) by smtp.albany.edu (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6HETPVu017323; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:29:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from hammond@localhost) by hilbert.math.albany.edu (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id g6HETKHs015879; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:29:20 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: Lines: 50 References: Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2002 14:50:21.0048 (UTC) FILETIME=[46324780:01C22DA1] User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.6 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: DFSG, the LaTeX Project and its works (Was: none) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:29:20 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: DFSG, the LaTeX Project and its works (Was: none) Thread-Index: AcItoUZqJa3GtHfJSNiPYJ+xpu5+nw== From: "William F Hammond" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4317 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22DA1.45925E00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Perhaps it just comes down to nuances of language. David Carlisle writes to LATEX-L: > 4) In practice, Debian recognizes "a different name or version number" > to refer *works*, not filenames. Permission to mandate or forbid = the > . . . > This misses the point that in latex filenames are part of the end-user > syntax. > > \usepackage{longtable} > > loads "longtable.sty" which is part of the core latex distribution. > Under msdos this gets stored in all sorts of ways longtabl.sty = lontable.sty > longtab~1.sty, whatever, . . . LaTeX is a _project_. Any of a LaTeX class, package, literate-programming wrapper, ... is a LaTeX _work_. With such new language in LPPL wouldn't renaming and version-numbering restrictions be appropriate under DFSG? Then have language in the license to the effect that technical changes not changing the _work_ are permissible. The new license might contain a URI pointing to the TDS standard with some mention of its relevance. The new license might also contain a URI pointing to a CTAN doc with guidelines on how a distribution implementer (such as Cygwin, Mac OS X, Redhat, Debian, SuSE, ...) can provide a distribution of LaTeX without breaking it. Isn't TUG's TeXLive the only free (as-in-speech) distribution we know to be maximally reliable these days? Ummm ... glug ... what type of object under LPPL should the URN "TDS:/$VARTEXMF/web2c/latex.fmt be? :-) -- Bill P.S. Just because present LPPL might not conform to DFSG does not mean that LaTeX is not free. Assertions to the contrary represent just one of a number of extant misappropriations of the word "free", not the least of which is that now going with "free market" to mean "narrow oligopoly not under the burden of governmental regulation" -- a notion that would, I suspect, be quite appalling to Adam Smith. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22DA1.45925E00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable DFSG, the LaTeX Project and its works (Was: none)

Perhaps it just comes down to nuances of = language.

David Carlisle <davidc@DCARLISLE.DEMON.CO.UK> = writes to LATEX-L:

> 4) In practice, Debian recognizes "a = different name or version number"
>    to refer *works*, not = filenames.  Permission to mandate or forbid the
> . . .
> This misses the point that in latex filenames = are part of the end-user
> syntax.
>
> \usepackage{longtable}
>
> loads "longtable.sty" which is part of = the core latex distribution.
> Under msdos this gets stored in all sorts of = ways longtabl.sty lontable.sty
> longtab~1.sty, whatever,  . . .

LaTeX is a _project_.

Any of a LaTeX class, package, literate-programming = wrapper, ...
is a LaTeX _work_.

With such new language in LPPL wouldn't renaming and = version-numbering
restrictions be appropriate under DFSG?  Then = have language in the
license to the effect that technical changes not = changing the _work_
are permissible.

The new license might contain a URI pointing to the = TDS standard
with some mention of its relevance.

The new license might also contain a URI pointing to a = CTAN doc
with guidelines on how a distribution implementer = (such as Cygwin,
Mac OS X, Redhat, Debian, SuSE, ...) can provide a = distribution of
LaTeX without breaking it.

Isn't TUG's TeXLive the only free (as-in-speech) = distribution we know
to be maximally reliable these days?

Ummm ... glug ... what type of object under LPPL = should the URN
"TDS:/$VARTEXMF/web2c/latex.fmt  = be?   :-)

          &nbs= p;            = ;            = -- Bill


P.S.  Just because present LPPL might not conform = to DFSG does not
mean that LaTeX is not free.  Assertions to the = contrary represent
just one of a number of extant misappropriations of = the word "free",
not the least of which is that now going with = "free market" to mean
"narrow oligopoly not under the burden of = governmental regulation" --
a notion that would, I suspect, be quite appalling to = Adam Smith.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C22DA1.45925E00--