Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:32:23 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h169WL6C028974 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:32:22 +0100 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 h169SMXM025810; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:28:23 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2CDC2.A7102D80" 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 h15N0BW0027019; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:19:32 +0100 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 8094 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:19:32 +0100 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 h169JWPw031495 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:19:32 +0100 Received: from spmler2.mail.eds.com (spmler2.mail.eds.com [194.128.225.188]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h169RItt002859 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:27:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from spmlir3.mail.eds.com (spmlir3-2.mail.eds.com [205.191.69.205]) by spmler2.mail.eds.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h169REm19083 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:27:14 GMT Received: from spmlir3.mail.eds.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spmlir3.mail.eds.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h169REg28112 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:27:14 GMT Received: from gbspm001.exemhub.exch.eds.com ([207.37.51.199]) by spmlir3.mail.eds.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h169REf28100 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:27:14 GMT Received: by GBSPM001 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.51) id <1KR3PS7V>; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:27:12 -0000 Return-Path: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.51) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2003 09:32:23.0866 (UTC) FILETIME=[A79451A0:01C2CDC2] x-mime-autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de id h169JWPw031496 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: 0.7 () EXCHANGE_SERVER,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: AW: Fiduciary Licence Agreement V1.0 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:27:08 +0100 Message-ID: A<630BE70C8320D6118D240002A589ABB204A95069@DERUM201> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AW: Fiduciary Licence Agreement V1.0 Thread-Index: AcLNwqe0bZeZrNyIRmeipsROm4pXOA== From: "Mittelbach, Frank" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4536 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2CDC2.A7102D80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Actually I don't think this is a workable idea, the LUG's are not able = to fulfill that role in my eyes. In my believe the suggested maintenance = clause that allows to give packages to the community is more likely to work = out. btw i expect a new draft to be ready during this month frank ps sorry for the mail style :-( this is outlook at its best -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: Martin Schr=F6der [mailto:martin@ONEIROS.DE] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2003 16:46 An: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de Betreff: Fiduciary Licence Agreement V1.0 See http://fsfeurope.org/projects/fla/fla.en.html I don't want to start another discussion on the pros and cons of the LPPL with this. But the idea of Copyright Assignments for (La)TeX packages should be discussed. And instead of the FSF think of you favorite LUG or the AMS. :-) Best regards Martin ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2CDC2.A7102D80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable AW: Fiduciary Licence Agreement V1.0

Actually I don't think this is a workable idea, the = LUG's are not able to
fulfill that role in my eyes. In my believe the = suggested maintenance clause
that allows to give packages to the community is more = likely to work out.

btw i expect a new draft to be ready during this = month
frank

ps sorry for the mail style :-( this is outlook at its = best

-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Martin Schr=F6der [mailto:martin@ONEIROS.DE]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2003 16:46
An: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
Betreff: Fiduciary Licence Agreement V1.0


See http://fsfeurope.o= rg/projects/fla/fla.en.html

I don't want to start another discussion on the pros = and cons of
the LPPL with this.

But the idea of Copyright Assignments for (La)TeX = packages should
be discussed. And instead of the FSF think of you = favorite LUG or
the AMS. :-)

Best regards
        = Martin

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2CDC2.A7102D80--