Re: Concluding the LPPL debate, try 2
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 11:58:46AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > The "option 3" you propose would entail that two directory trees
> > > existed, one which is the original LaTeX, and one where the kernel is
> > > modified and renames but the rest of the files (say, third-party style
> > > files) may be modified *without* renaming. Thus there would still
> > > be a danger if the search path for the pristine software were to be
> > > contaminated with references to the hacked tree.
> >
> > That is correct. However, causing a hacked, non-renamed, non-retokened
> > file to be loaded and run by Standard LaTeX would be a license
> > violation.
>
> No. Only distributing a modified LaTeX such that it would do so should
> be a license violation. Otherwise the license would not be DFSG.
>
> Remember, "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". How one
> *uses* the software must not be restricted.
>
> The LaTeX folks are within their rights to insist that people not
> distribute a thing that claims to be Standard LaTeX if it is not.
already the current license explicitly says that you can do whatever you wish
if you are not distributing it (the current license suggests that it is best
to always work as if you intend to distribute (because one day you might want
to or do it by mistake)) but right from LPPL 1.0 we explicitly distinguished
between distribution and use without distribution.
frank
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: