Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 5 May 2006 11:06:40 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.2) with ESMTP id k4596ZhT028855 for ; Fri, 5 May 2006 11:06:36 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4593Kx5020888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 May 2006 11:03:20 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k458twLR016452; Fri, 5 May 2006 11:03:20 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.3) with spool id 1305313 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 5 May 2006 11:03:20 +0200 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4593Kk6017368 for ; Fri, 5 May 2006 11:03:20 +0200 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.177]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k4596Zvj027033 for ; Fri, 5 May 2006 11:06:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [84.169.180.110] (helo=morse.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu5) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML25U-1FbwDL1hFu-0008Go; Fri, 05 May 2006 11:03:07 +0200 Received: by morse.mittelbach-online.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 525534647F; Fri, 5 May 2006 11:03:04 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20060427182251.GA23586@m0A023293.vpn.uni-freiburg.de> <200605042048.k44KmDO23074@f7.net> <20060505043642.GB3369@irwin.vpn.uni-freiburg.de> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:923c546e49b26a7485eda6910e23f403 Message-ID: <17499.5320.136951.598853@morse.mittelbach-online.de> Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:03:04 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: LaTeX Release 2005/12/01 To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: <20060505043642.GB3369@irwin.vpn.uni-freiburg.de> Precedence: list X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang at proteosys.com Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2006 09:06:40.0127 (UTC) FILETIME=[388870F0:01C67023] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4942 Heiko Oberdiek writes: > * Is this "redistribution" compliant with LPPL? Is this considered > as "Compiled Work"? With the exception of inputenc.dtx (fixing > the bug in order to be able to compile it) the sources are > unmodified during the generation of the PDF files, however > special configuration files are used. Would Clause 3 of > "Conditions on Distribution and Modification" apply? I would say yes, it is a compiled work especially as it contains the sources unchanged (that was one reason of the term to allow something like a TL distribution to rearrange and unpack). The change of inputenc.dtx although necessary, would be in violation though, but that can be amended by giving Heiko permission (and fixing the file which i did in the sources) If one considers the change to inputenc as a derived work (which technically it is) then to fullfil 6a one could do something like ... % \ProvidesFile{cp1250.def} [2006/05/05 v1.1b Input encoding file + documentation fix by HOb] but it should be easier to get an updated file on CTAN and use that :-) > > > And having them on CTAN makes it easier to use them for TL (and other > > distributions, I imagine). > > I agree. > > > Perhaps, for example, > > macros/latex/base-tds.zip > > macros/latex/required/cyrillic-tds.zip > > macros/latex/required/graphics-tds.zip > > macros/latex/required/tools-tds.zip > > Back to latex-tds. I think the location above needs the permission > of the LaTeX project team. Without permission perhaps I'm quite happy with the above scheme and i doubt that others see this differently. However, it is really more something for the CTAN people to decide in my opinion. Getting the distribution in a better shape should always be a goal. How much of what you have done is or can be automated? frank