Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Sat, 20 Jul 2002 18:23:27 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6KGN8Wi002108 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 18:23:09 +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 g6KG36WK023227; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 18:03:06 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C23009.C6EC2980" 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 g6KFQ6un032402; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 18:02:43 +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 4322 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 18:02:43 +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 g6KG2guV032528 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 18:02:42 +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 g6KG1mT8010503 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 18:01:49 +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 g6KG1hVu006313; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:01:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from hammond@localhost) by hilbert.math.albany.edu (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id g6KG1eZh008278; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:01:40 -0400 (EDT) Lines: 56 References: <15667.17322.923787.604569@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <20020716094829.A3002@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> <20020716.135105.41626007.wlandry@ucsd.edu> <20020717022416.A3442@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> <20020717023521.GA14707@dodds.net> <20020717215542.B4362@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> <200207172124.g6HLO8YC010625@bilbo.localnet> <20020718134315.0C4C8297D3@mixing.qc.dfo.ca> <200207181806.g6II6WUx022524@bilbo.localnet> <1027035019.1796.196.camel@laptop2.internal.licquia.org> <200207191934.g6JJYRsE003489@bilbo.localnet> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2002 16:23:27.0968 (UTC) FILETIME=[C77FDE00:01C23009] 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: Re: LaTeX & DFSG Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 17:01:40 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: LaTeX & DFSG Thread-Index: AcIwCcecieKRFo9wSwqSUE4vFHAbfw== From: "William F Hammond" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4335 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C23009.C6EC2980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --- Note to LATEX-L readers: it does indeed seem that Frank and David are making progress in a reasonable negotiation at debian-legal towards a reconciliation of LPPL and the Debian Free Software Guidelines. --- There is something I do not understand: Jeff Licquia , who seems to be the Debian spokesman, writes in debian-legal@lists.debian.org at 19 Jul 2002 16:09:59 -0500, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00264.ht= ml > - A program is modifiable if a user has the legal right to change the > program's behavior in an arbitrary way without excessive inconvenience > or requirements. Absolutely. The LaTeX world has always had that. There are, however, both good and bad approaches. I hope we are straight on the distinction between users and package or class authors. Everybody in the LaTeX world has freedom, but the mechanisms for breakage-free exercise of that freedom depend on the role. > Now, the sticky word here is "excessive". In one respect, LD_PRELOAD > can be used to change any program's behavior no matter the license, = but > I think we'd agree that this would be an excessive requirement. Sure. > Taken at a "stupid level", your requirement for filename changes also > seems excessive. At face value, the cascading change requirements > (change references in this other file, which is also a change = requiring > rename, which means more references to the new file have to be = changed, > etc.) would make it nearly impossible to practically make changes to > LaTeX. Further, it's not clear whether further modifications beyond = the > first set require yet more name changes, for reasons I've discussed > elsewhere. I don't follow the allusion to cascading change requirements. Could someone pose a simple example? Or was the cascade a nightmare? -- Bill Gratuitous marginally related postscript: Workers needed. A great deal of new freedom can be had by using an XML layout document type that models LaTeX. With that one can have all kinds of processing pipelines for billions and billions of fussy taste-based decisions using LaTeX typesetting at the end, with reliability resting importantly on respect for LPPL. GELLMU can be used for a free-standing LaTeX-like markup interface to such a document type. Please understand though that this is not about translating LaTeX documents into XML; it is for new documents. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C23009.C6EC2980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LaTeX & DFSG

---
Note to LATEX-L readers: it does indeed seem that = Frank and David are
making progress in a reasonable negotiation at = debian-legal towards a
reconciliation of LPPL and the Debian Free Software = Guidelines.
---

There is something I do not understand:

Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>, who seems to = be the Debian spokesman,
writes in debian-legal@lists.debian.org at 19 Jul = 2002 16:09:59 -0500,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207= /msg00264.html

>  - A program is modifiable if a user has the = legal right to change the
> program's behavior in an arbitrary way without = excessive inconvenience
> or requirements.

Absolutely.  The LaTeX world has always had = that.  There are, however,
both good and bad approaches.

I hope we are straight on the distinction between = users and package
or class authors.  Everybody in the LaTeX world = has freedom, but
the mechanisms for breakage-free exercise of that = freedom depend on
the role.

> Now, the sticky word here is = "excessive".  In one respect, LD_PRELOAD
> can be used to change any program's behavior no = matter the license, but
> I think we'd agree that this would be an = excessive requirement.

Sure.

> Taken at a "stupid level", your = requirement for filename changes also
> seems excessive.  At face value, the = cascading change requirements
> (change references in this other file, which is = also a change requiring
> rename, which means more references to the new = file have to be changed,
> etc.) would make it nearly impossible to = practically make changes to
> LaTeX.  Further, it's not clear whether = further modifications beyond the
> first set require yet more name changes, for = reasons I've discussed
> elsewhere.

I don't follow the allusion to cascading change = requirements.

Could someone pose a simple example?  Or was the = cascade a nightmare?

          &nbs= p;            = ;            = -- Bill

Gratuitous marginally related postscript:  = Workers needed.

A great deal of new freedom can be had by using an XML = layout document
type that models LaTeX.  With that one can have = all kinds of
processing pipelines for billions and billions of = fussy taste-based
decisions using LaTeX typesetting at the end, with = reliability resting
importantly on respect for LPPL.  GELLMU can be = used for a
free-standing LaTeX-like markup interface to such a = document type.
Please understand though that this is not about = translating LaTeX
documents into XML;  it is for new = documents.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C23009.C6EC2980--