Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia
Frank Mittelbach <email@example.com> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
> > I must be thick headed. How can you say that the kernel will never
> > need to be modified for a new package? I accept that in most cases,
> > this is true, but saying that it is always true is absurd.
> no its not. perhaps you mistake "kernel" with "virtual machine".
Ah, now I see your argument. Yes, you can do anything because you can
redefine anything in LaTeX. In fact, you could just re-implement
LaTeX. That seems like a lot of work to make modifications. It is a
crude hack, and sounds unfree to me.
> > Also, why don't future names pile up as unchangeable? The LaTeX
> > project release file FOO. Bob modifies and renames it to BAR and puts
> > it under the LPPL. Alice modifies that, renames it to BAZ, and puts
> > that under the LPPL. Eve modifies it again and doesn't know what to
> > name it, since we've run out of silly computer science names.
> true, by extending the LaTeX language (through putting BAR under
> LPPL) Bob has added to the language and in this way to the pile of
> names within the language and so does Alice. This is like extensions
> in a computer language from one version to the next might increase
> the number of keywords in that language. And yes number of useful
> keywords is finite.
In computer languages, I am free to get rid of those useful keywords.
I think that is what the embedded C++ people were trying to do. Here,
I am not so free.
> what i meant, however, (and sorry for not expressing that good
> enough) is that LPPL doesn't pile up names by default, ie simply
> through forking. That is there is no requirement for Alice to put
> BAZ under LPPL just because FOO or BAR was.
Won't that tend to happen, though? Many of the extensions to LaTeX
are licensed under the LPPL, even though they have no official
connection to the LaTeX project.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com