Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > That's basically the idea. *If* there is a validation mechanism, and
> > *if* the module uses the validation mechanism to assert it is "Standard
> > LaTeX", then when you change the file, you must ensure that the module
> > does not validate as "Standard LaTeX". This can be done by removing the
> > validation mechanism from the base or by causing the file in question to
> > not report itself as standard.
>
> It still depends on the platform that runs it to determine whether the
> modification is allowed. It may be that this is free when distributed
> with a base format that does no such validation and non-free otherwise.
I acknowledge that this may be true. Regarding LaTeX, is it?
> By the way, say I do this (I make a modification for use on my
> non-validating base format, and I don't change the validation signature
> because I don't have to under the last sentence of 5.a.2). And then give
> the file to my friend, who has a base format which DOES validate. Nothing
> prevents him using or distributing this file (which is just the Work I
> gave him, he's not modifying it), right?
Use is OK. Remember that the license explicitly disavows any
jurisdiction on use.
Distributing is a different matter. Remember that the file must be
combined with LaTeX, and the result cannot represent itself as Standard
LaTeX when run. So, if you distribute the file combined with LaTeX, you
could be in violation of the license.
I can't see any problem with distributing it separately or as a patch,
though.
--
Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>
Reply to: