Concluding the debate (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 14:31, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> it seems to me that by now we are turning around in cycles rehashing arguments
> that are important in general (can LaTeX have security problems, yes or no?;
> how does one do software development ...) but not with respect to the problem
> at hand which still is (to me at least) the following two things:
>
> 1) determine whether or not the fundamental believes of the LaTeX Mafia
> comply with the those of the Debian people
>
> 2) if so to draft a new LPPL license that reflects both believes, i.e., is
> DSFG-complient (as well as being understood to be DSFG-complient) while at
> the same time allowing the majority of the people in the LaTeX world to
> work as they feel appropriate.
>
> If (1) is a no-go we don't have to attempt (2) and I for my part have no
> intention to. But if (1) is possible, and it seems that this is the case, then
> please stop arguing on the level
[...]
> So to sumarize:
>
> To go forward I propose
>
> A) I would like you to come to a conclusion on (1) assuming the above Axiom
>
> B) if you do and the outcome is not a flat no, but at least a grunted yes (or
> if you like "its stupid and pointless but within the limits"), then I'm happy
> to get back to the early posts by Jeff and take together with him and anybody
> else interested the license completely apart to make its wording and
> statements reflect what is intended without needing long explanations of
> intend for the reader (as it is currently the case) and remove or rephrase
> those parts that are completely wrong or unnecessary.
>
> C) if the conclusion on (1) is a flat no, then I fear I have to suggest to
> you to remove LaTeX from Debian, which I think many (me included) would think
> would be a pitty.
It seems that the filename restriction problem is the main sticking
point; the rest are either the result of misunderstandings or are
details the Project has already committed to fixing ("what is a
file?"). So, I'm going to post a definitive statement:
-----
The requirement for modifications to LaTeX to be in files with different
names from the original files, when combined with the ability for LaTeX
to do filename mapping for file references, does not constitute a
violation of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
-----
Now, I want to hear objections to that statement. If there are none,
then I will assert:
-----
Condition (1) above is satisfied; Debian and LaTeX should set about the
business of drafting changes to the LPPL.
-----
Now is the time to object, or to be silent. I agree with Frank that we
either need to move forward or break off the discussion; there are no
new points being presented.
After that, Frank has asked me to act as a representative for Debian so
we can iron out the main points without fomenting debate on every
subpoint. Once this is done, we can present the new license and ask for
comments. Does anyone object to this? I do not mind being replaced if
another volunteer is considered to be a better representative for
Debian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: