Re: [NTG-context] Some concerns about the ConTeXt license.
Hi Brooks, Are you on the dev-context@ntg.nl list? If not, would you please subscribe? It would make communication about the contextgarden stuff easier ('talking' through the wiki's Talk pages is not optimal), and also the user mailing list is quite large and most people on it are beginners who should probably not be bothered with technical / development things too much. Is that ok? On the license: I believe the context license should essentially be the LPPL, and the two reasons why it is not currently are: 1) there was no usable LPPL when context first became public 2) Hans and I are unhappy with the word "LaTeX" in the name. Cheers, Taco
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Hi Brooks,
Are you on the dev-context@ntg.nl list? If not, would you please subscribe? It would make communication about the contextgarden stuff easier ('talking' through the wiki's Talk pages is not optimal), and also the user mailing list is quite large and most people on it are beginners who should probably not be bothered with technical / development things too much. Is that ok?
On the license: I believe the context license should essentially be the LPPL, and the two reasons why it is not currently are: 1) there was no usable LPPL when context first became public 2) Hans and I are unhappy with the word "LaTeX" in the name.
indeed, there is no generic tex license (and the main issue for us in a tex licence is that although people may do what they want with teh code, they may not mess aroudn in such a way that we suddenly get mails about something not working that we have nothing to do with); [a tex system s a complex system and acts a s whole i.e. macros, fonts, etc and integrety of the system is a must]; i must admit that i don't understand the n-page gnu licences (the simple fact that they need so many pages is a bad omen) and i'm probably not alone in this given that there are apache licences, ruby licences etc; actually when i looked into it (long ago) i liked the apache one, but it has the name apache in it -) concerning (2), as taco remarks, the tex world lost the opportunity to make a generic licence; there was some discussion about this at bachotek (a latex project licence for fonts makes no sense either); also, soem folks present made clear that the general gnu one is also not ok, since it can backfire in such ways that you cannot even change your own code without obeying to some rules that you don't want to obey to for pracical reasons. So, concerning the context licence, it more shows how we think of it than that it is a legal document; [actually, i like those short creative common licences] Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
At 12:48 PM 9/5/2005, Hans Hagen
concerning (2), as taco remarks, the tex world lost the opportunity to make a generic licence; there was some discussion about this at bachotek (a latex project licence for fonts makes no sense either); also, soem folks present made clear that the general gnu one is also not ok, since it can backfire in such ways that you cannot even change your own code without obeying to some rules that you don't want to obey to for pracical reasons.
Is the problem with the LaTeX Project license simply the name? I can understand that the name seems a bit odd for a font or for ConTeXt, but it really doesn't seem any stranger than putting a Gnu license on something that's unrelated to the Gnu project. (Also, I suspect that they had no choice in the name, as a lot of old programs were licensed under "LaTeX Project Public License version 1.1 or later" or suchlike.) And, as for Apache -- I understand that there are a number of non-Apache projects that use the license. Also, although the LPPL says at the top that it is not permitted to modify it, it then clarifies this further down with "You may use the text of this license as a model for your own license, but your license should not refer to the LPPL or otherwise give the impression that your work is distributed under the LPPL." So I think it would be perfectly acceptable to simply edit the portions regarding "Current Maintainer" to explicitly refer to Pragma, take out the "if you are the current maintainer" clauses, and call it the ConTeXt Public License. (I've sent off an email to the LaTeX3 Project for confirmation of that; I'll let you know what they have to say.)
So, concerning the context licence, it more shows how we think of it than that it is a legal document; [actually, i like those short creative common licences]
Indeed; there's an advantage to conciseness! It occurs to me, too, that if I have any questions in practice about whether I can use some code from ConTeXt, the simplest solution is simply to email and say, "Hans, can I use this code in this thing I'm making?" :) - Brooks
Brooks Moses wrote:
At 12:48 PM 9/5/2005, Hans Hagen
wrote: Is the problem with the LaTeX Project license simply the name? I can
That is the most important consideration, I believe. This name is worse than (say) the apache license, because it promotes the notion that TeX equals LaTeX (when used for a TeX-related bit of software) However, it is also quite complicated. If there is a suitable CC license available, that would be easier on the brain. I would guess "by-nd" is acceptable to hans, but perhaps a bit too restrictive. http://creativecommons.org/license/meet-the-licenses Cheers, Taco
participants (3)
-
Brooks Moses
-
Hans Hagen
-
Taco Hoekwater