Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 22 Jul 2002 07:04:00 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6M53hWi005840 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 07:03:44 +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 g6M4loT8007145; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 06:47:50 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2313D.30B92000" 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 g6M1vJvh006368; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 06:47:11 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 4036 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 06:47:11 +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 g6M4lBuV006828 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 06:47:11 +0200 Received: from sina.sharif.edu (sina.sharif.ac.ir [194.225.40.9]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6M4kAWK000801 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 06:46:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from bamdad.org (IDENT:root@[194.225.40.24]) by sina.sharif.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6M4j7G19706; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:15:07 +0430 Received: from localhost (roozbeh@localhost) by bamdad.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6M4k5U04186; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:16:05 +0430 In-Reply-To: <15671.59093.569797.181271@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2002 05:04:01.0564 (UTC) FILETIME=[31A7C5C0:01C2313D] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) X-Authentication-Warning: gilas.bamdad.org: roozbeh owned process doing -bs X-X-Sender: roozbeh@gilas.bamdad.org 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: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 05:46:05 +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: AcIxPTH3s6b0aaoOSHKbtNwJCYervg== From: "Roozbeh Pournader" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4340 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2313D.30B92000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (Please CC me on answers: I'm not a member of debian-legal.) On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > Concern 1: requiring a change of filename in case of modification > in case of distribution > = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > this seems to me the major stumbling point for most people and > (unfortunately the most important point for us) I believe the only way to rethink this is this quote, from : The LaTeX Project Public License [...] The reason this requirement is acceptable for LaTeX is that LaTeX = has a facility to allow you to map file names, to specify ``use file bar when file foo is requested''. With this facility, the requirement is merely annoying; without the facility, the same requirement would be a serious obstacle, and we would have to conclude it makes the program non-free. Without this, even FSF and RMS would have not classified LPPL 1.2 as a free software license. So Frank, please mention this everywhere you want to prove LPPL is a Free Software license. For debian people: please consider this. I believe this voids many of = the intents of the license, as previously mentioned (sysadmins can use this remapping feature to make \documentclass{article} load some other file instead of 'article.cls'), but this is also the reason FSF agreed that = it is a free software license. > Argument 3.2: Trademarks and certification marks are tools better = suited to > controlling endorsements of conformance with a standard = or set > of usage practices. I agree. I still believe that TeX's copyright is a trademark and a software license combined. He could not have said: "Don't use the name = TeX if you change this file", if there was not a trade mark on the names = TeX, METAFONT, etc (I don't know the exact situation about Knuth's other programs distributed with Debian, like Computer Modern fonts). roozbeh ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2313D.30B92000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Question(s) for clarifications with respect to the LPPL = discussion

(Please CC me on answers: I'm not a member of = debian-legal.)

On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Frank Mittelbach wrote:

> Concern 1: requiring a change of filename in case = of modification
>          =   in case of distribution
> = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> this seems to me the major stumbling point for = most people and
> (unfortunately the most important point for = us)

I believe the only way to rethink this is this quote, = from
<http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicens= es>:

  The LaTeX Project Public License

    [...]

    The reason this requirement is = acceptable for LaTeX is that LaTeX has
    a facility to allow you to map = file names, to specify ``use file bar
    when file foo is requested''. With = this facility, the requirement is
    merely annoying; without the = facility, the same requirement would be
    a serious obstacle, and we would = have to conclude it makes the
    program non-free.

Without this, even FSF and RMS would have not = classified LPPL 1.2 as a
free software license. So Frank, please mention this = everywhere you want
to prove LPPL is a Free Software license.

For debian people: please consider this. I believe = this voids many of the
intents of the license, as previously mentioned = (sysadmins can use this
remapping feature to make \documentclass{article} = load some other file
instead of 'article.cls'), but this is also the = reason FSF agreed that it
is a free software license.

> Argument 3.2: Trademarks and certification marks = are tools better suited to
>          =      controlling endorsements of conformance with a = standard or set
>          =      of usage practices.

I agree. I still believe that TeX's copyright is a = trademark and a
software license combined. He could not have said: = "Don't use the name TeX
if you change this file", if there was not a = trade mark on the names TeX,
METAFONT, etc (I don't know the exact situation about = Knuth's other
programs distributed with Debian, like Computer = Modern fonts).

roozbeh

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2313D.30B92000--