Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:09:16 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6JF8tWi031788 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:08:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C22F36.3F81B600" 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 g6JErcT8000516; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:53:38 +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 g6J9Gl5r024770; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:54:16 +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 4907 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:54:16 +0200 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 g6JEsGuV027373 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:54:16 +0200 Received: from smtp.tninet.se (vir.tninet.se [195.100.94.108]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6JErIWK020865 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:53:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [195.100.226.136] (du128-226.ppp.su-anst.tninet.se [195.100.226.128]) by vir.tninet.se (BMR ErlangTM/OTP 3.0) with ESMTP id 908150.90396.1027.1s93862vir for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:53:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: <15671.59093.569797.181271@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2002 15:09:16.0293 (UTC) FILETIME=[3FAE6B50:01C22F36] X-Sender: haberg@pop.matematik.su.se X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.6 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Question(s) for clarifications with respect to the LPPL discussion Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:50:12 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Question(s) for clarifications with respect to the LPPL discussion Thread-Index: AcIvNj/IPqxri/RSS9ehxKtRGqYarg== From: "Hans Aberg" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4332 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22F36.3F81B600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 12:15 +0200 2002/07/19, Frank Mittelbach wrote: >Concern 1: requiring a change of filename in case of modification > in case of distribution ... >Concern 2: the ability to make modification without filename changes > in case of private or "closed" use To begin with, if the use is entirely private or "closed", copyright = laws probably do not apply, as no potential business concerns have been = violated. I think that, as a matter of normal programming practise, if a file is merely fixed in minor ways which does not alter its intended function, = then one might want to keep its name, but if it is altered in major ways, = then it is prudent to change its name. Now, if one alters a LaTeX file in minor ways, one may still want = programs to use this new file in lieu of the old one, but it would be prudent to inform the users that a replacement has taken place. Therefore I suggested that LaTeX switches to the use of "creator names" that must be changed instead of the file name. Then one can use LaTeX commands like \ExpectCreator, \RequireCreator, that could issue a = warning alternatively stop the execution (asking for continuation) if one gets a file with the wrong creator. >From: Mark Rafn >http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00163.h= tml > > In order to be free, it must allow exactly what LPPL seems designed to > prevent. A Debian user can take LaTeX, make it behave differently = than > the original, (including producing different output), and distribute = the > result. I get the impression that the computing community is divided into = factions over what should be meant by the word "free": Some mean that the user should be able to anything, others mean that also derivations should be free (like GNU), and yet others that it one should tell if it's not the original (like LaTeX). And each faction wants to impose its concept onto others. It is probably quite difficult to agree on a universal definition of what free means, = as most tend to agree that freedoms also have its limitations when others = may become hurt of a practise: LaTeX wants to avoid people becoming hurt by compiling what seems to be = a normal output, but in reality is not. Hans Aberg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C22F36.3F81B600 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Question(s) for clarifications with respect to the LPPL = discussion

At 12:15 +0200 2002/07/19, Frank Mittelbach = wrote:

>Concern 1: requiring a change of filename in case = of modification
>          = in case of distribution
...
>Concern 2: the ability to make modification = without filename changes
>          = in case of private or "closed" use

To begin with, if the use is entirely private or = "closed", copyright laws
probably do not apply, as no potential business = concerns have been violated.

I think that, as a matter of normal programming = practise, if a file is
merely fixed in minor ways which does not alter its = intended function, then
one might want to keep its name, but if it is altered = in major ways, then
it is prudent to change its name.

Now, if one alters a LaTeX file in minor ways, one may = still want programs
to use this new file in lieu of the old one, but it = would be prudent to
inform the users that a replacement has taken = place.

Therefore I suggested that LaTeX switches to the use = of "creator names"
that must be changed instead of the file name. Then = one can use LaTeX
commands like \ExpectCreator, \RequireCreator, that = could issue a warning
alternatively stop the execution (asking for = continuation) if one gets a
file with the wrong creator.

>From: Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net>
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207= /msg00163.html
>
> In order to be free, it must allow exactly what = LPPL seems designed to
> prevent.  A Debian user can take LaTeX, = make it behave differently than
> the original, (including producing different = output), and distribute the
> result.

I get the impression that the computing community is = divided into factions
over what should be meant by the word = "free": Some mean that the user
should be able to anything, others mean that also = derivations should be
free (like GNU), and yet others that it one should = tell if it's not the
original (like LaTeX).

And each faction wants to impose its concept onto = others. It is probably
quite difficult to agree on a universal definition of = what free means, as
most tend to agree that freedoms also have its = limitations when others may
become hurt of a practise:

LaTeX wants to avoid people becoming hurt by compiling = what seems to be a
normal output, but in reality is not.

  Hans Aberg

------_=_NextPart_001_01C22F36.3F81B600--