Re: User's thoughts about LPPL
>> This is a really good argument *in favour* of LPPL! If someone
>> adds support for Klingon by modifying the LaTeX kernel, the
>> resulting documents will have a restricted distribution
>> because they won't compile correctly in other systems. This
>> is an _actual_ restriction. But if instead a package -- extending
>> and modifying latex as desired -- is created and called from
>> the document, it will complain about a required but missing
>> package and you will be able to locate and get the package,
>> and then typeset the document. Otherwise, you will be frustrated
>> because you could have a 'correct' document displaying nothing
>> without any explanation.
> You missed the point, which is that the changes in the Latex kernel
> had to be made in order for Klingon (or whatever language) to work.
As I said, that's not exact.
> Don't tell me that there will never be a need to change the internals
> in order to make something work.
Of course, I won't tell you that. I repeat that the internals *can*
be changed without touching a single file from the LaTeX kernel,
and currenty there are several packages doing that. An example:
the hyperref package patches some internals of the LateX kernel
to provide hyperlinks and more in pdf documents, and no file
from LaTeX has been modified.
> You can't anticipate everything that
> will happen in technology for the 100 years.
Definitely right, and as you can see LaTeX already provides
a mechanism for that (which could explain why LaTeX is still
alive after 20 years). The lppl ensures that this mechanism is
used, or otherwise the free distribution of LaTeX documents
won't be possible and it will suffer severe restrictions.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com