Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)
> On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 10:22, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > Perhaps I misunderstood, but it sounded like it would be required for a
> > modified work to identify itself as modified, so that documents can
> > determine if they're running on "real" latex. This disallows preserving
> > the API exactly while changing the execution.
On 24 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> No, no. The *kernel* would do the recognition, not the documents. It
> would have a list of "acceptable" values for that macro.
> Thus, "latex" would refuse to use any modules that didn't identify
> themselves as Standard LaTeX, while "debtex" would accept modules that
> identified themselves as "debTeX" or Standard LaTeX.
Still don't get it. You're either requiring modified work to follow a
specific API, which is IMO non-free, or you don't get the desired
protection against impostors, as a modified work could simply return the
> > A different name to humans. A different package name, sure. In some
> > cases, a different executable name (This would be problematic if it
> > were broad enough). A different name in it's API? I don't think that
> > follows.
> Why not? Why does embedding the name in a registration call offend you?
For the same reason that limiting the API of any program would be
non-free. I also wouldn't accept a C library that disallowed calling a
modified function "printf".
> > Adding the facility is no worry. Requiring derived works to use that
> > facility is non-free IMO.
> Give me some reasons. "I don't like it" is really hard to argue with,
> address, or even evaluate.
Because freedom to change (or not change) the API is part of the freedom
that I believe Debian guarantees to it's users.
Mark Rafn email@example.com <http://www.dagon.net/>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com