Re: Towards a new LPPL draft
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 09:02, Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
> as I said, sorry that was not deliberate. But for me work and file name
> within the LATeX
> context is very tightly linked. I mean, if you have the single file
> under LPPL then what other is the "work" then this file, ie how do you
> rename it without renaming the
> file? (yes you can put it into a tar ball, but this is not the way we think
> defines "work")
If each piece of the work had to be downloaded separately, then this
would be a valid way of thinking. When the LaTeX Project collects a
bunch of these separate works and combines them into "LaTeX", though,
they create a derived work, with its own licensing requirements.
The license already allows sub-works within LaTeX to have additional
modification requirements beyond the LPPL. If you thought that some of
the sub-authors would disagree with relaxing the file naming requirement
when changing the name of the work from "LaTeX", you could allow them to
add that restriction to their file(s).
Then, it would be our problem dealing with those files. We might, for
example, move them to tetex-nonfree. Then, you'd need both the tetex
packages in main and tetex-nonfree for a full LaTeX installation, but
many documents would work fine without tetex-nonfree, and documents that
didn't work would fail with an error.
> If you think of LPPL applying to the whole of a LaTeX sty/cls tree of files
> at once, we could, i think
> live with the idea (it is even described so in modguide or cfgguide as a
> possible though not encouraged
> solution (thereby actually violating the license as it is right now)), that
> you produce sniffenlatex
> which has its own complete tree and in there has identical file names to the
> pristine LaTeX tree so
> that both trees live side by side.
>From the objections I have seen in trying to wrap up this thread, this
is likely to be an important point. I would strongly advise making this
concession if you can.
> But the problem here is that LPPL doesn'T apply to the whole thing but
> individually to its many parts.
> so if you only wnat to change overcite.sty there is nothing nowhere to put
> it and i don'T see how you
> describe (or even want to) that for that change you have to duplicate the
> whole tree.
Would it work for you to require the following?
- if the whole is named "LaTeX", every changed file must be renamed
- if the whole is named something else, files may be changed without
(We would need to come up with a suitable definition for "naming", of
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com