Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org>
>
> > no. *each* file that you change must be renamed, but where is the problem
> > here? I think it has also been demonstrated that is neither excessive nor in
> > conflict with DSFG 3+4
>
> I still think it can be viewed as excessive. Let me explain.
>
> Imagine that I want to create a typesetting system that behaves just
> like LaTeX on all input files, except that input files that say
> something like
>
> \documentclass[12pt]{article}
>
> will actually be typeset with a 13-point font (and similarly for the
> other standard classes). Note that I have deliberately selected an
> extremely silly task, because I already conceded that I can think of
> no non-silly reasons to want to fork LaTeX although I do care for the
> theoretical ability to fork nevertheless.
[example of the complex way removed]
Do you know about the suggested way of forking given in cfgguide.tex? That
wouldn't fully cover you example as it was written in 1995 or so, but LaTeX
only knows about a very small number of file types that are "loadable via
interfaces and by rewriting that example to cover the three missing ones (only
deals with .sty and .cls there) you have a simple way to fork which consists of
making a new kernel by adding 20+ lines of code
modify any loadable file as you wish (after giving it a new name constructed
from the old) and still have it found by your new kernel as if it had its
original name, eg in your example instead of art12.clo you name your file
art12.fcl and it will be found whenever the unmodified kernel would try to
load art12.clo.
after that kernel change (which makes it a "nonLaTeX") no hacking unrelated
files, no checking for them, ..., would be required.
of course that isn't the only way to fork it is one suggested way not a
requirement or anything.
> numbers in the .clo file will be able to do it. So the morale I'm
> aiming at is that the renaming rule will prevent some people from
> doing modifications that they would otherwise be technically competent
> to do.
but with the above approach (which is documented and even referred to in the
license)
We, the LaTeX3 Project, believe that the conditions below give you
the freedom to make and distribute modified versions of The Program
that conform with whatever technical specifications you wish while
maintaining the availability, integrity, and reliability of
The Program. If you do not see how to achieve your goal while
meeting these conditions, then read the document `cfgguide.tex'
in the base LaTeX distribution for suggestions.
it boils down to a simple change of a few numbers in the right file
> BTW, is there an easy way to figure out which collections of files
> constitute a work? In the teTeX installation I do my daily work with,
> texmf/tex/latex/base contains 123 files - are they all one work, or
> are they divided somehow?
it is suggested in the license to specify that in a sensible way, most works
do that by saying in every file something like:
%% The list of all files belonging to the LaTeX base distribution is
%% given in the file `manifest.txt'.
if the list is longer or else simply enumerate the files forming a work.
frank
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: