Re: Suggestion for dual-licensed LaTeX (was Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft))
> From: Brian Sniffen <email@example.com>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:34:50 -0400
> I'd like to suggest a licensing variant for LaTeX which uses a
> weakened form of the API restrictions discussed earlier. In its
> simplest form, this requires distribution of two versions of LaTeX.
> One is under a no-cost-but-proprietary modification ("OpenLaTeX")
> similar to the LPPL3, but which allowed code licensed under it to also
> be used under the terms of the FreeLaTeX license. The other
> ("FreeLaTeX") is under a DFSG-free license which:
I am not a member of a LaTeX3 team, so I cannot speak for it. I am a
member of TUG. Let me tell you what I think as a TeX user.
1. Your proposition should include not only LaTeX but also TeX since
its licensing terms are essentially the same.
2. Over the years TeX Users Group supported many not-quite TeX
projects (NTS, etex, pdftex, etc). In all these cases the fork was
driven by understandable typesetting needs. You propose a fork
driven by ideology.
3. While you have a perfect right to create any derivative work as
long it is not called TeX, I think that it would be a waste of
money and effort for TUG to support it.
In short: you can create your FreeTeX or whatever you want. Just do
not assume TeX users community to help you.
Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced.
- John Keats
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com