Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:15:42AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> > i have heard that statement before, but to me it doesn't follow from DSFG 4
> > and others (regulars on this list I presume) have in my understanding also
> > expressed that. Not everybody --- the camp is clearly divided.
> I havn't seen dissention on this issue. Some people have said that they
what about the posts i cited? I wan't indicating that people where thinking
about filename changes being a "name or version" change before, i was
indicating that some people were following the argumentation.
> don't like it (many DD's don't like #4; that's why it's a a compromise),
> and others (eg. Thomas and Branden) have pointed out that renaming may
> not necessarily accomplish what you want.
but renaming does accomplish it, as pointed out in replies. and we know no
other way to accomplish it.
on the other hand, no (usable) suggestions so far were put up on how to solve
that exchangibility feature of LaTeX (not the nonLaTeX startinf from a kernel
fork) otherwise. Branden tried but he thought of LaTeX being a monolith which
would allow to test for "standard" conformance --- but as it isn't (remember
any derived work under a new name might extend "LaTeX" as seen by the users),
this approach is unworkable.
> The rest of this seems, to me, like you're trying to use #4 in ways it
> wasn't intended to be used. I'll leave replies to people more experienced
> with Latex and the DFSG than myself.
i'm certainly aware that we interpret #4 in a way which is at least uncommon,
though that doesn't necessarily makes it wrong.
I would certainly be glad to hear other opinions on the interpretation that i
put forward in the previous mail
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org