Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 16:50, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
>
> > Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
> >> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
> >> > Scripsit Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>
> >
> >> >> That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is
> >> >> easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
> >> >> files, but not the validation mechanism.
> >
> >> > Could you please imagine one?
> >
> >> Sure: I take the Base Format and make a functional change to it,
> >> removing the option to turn off validation. Now I distribute this
> >> under your draft LPPL.
I'm going to note, for the record, that I don't see how this makes the
software non-free. So, I don't yet believe that implementation details
can make the software non-free. (But stay tuned.)
> It is not possible to distribute non-free software under the MIT/X11
> license, for example.
But it is possible to do so under the GFDL (so the argument goes).
> Given that you and Jeff are proposing this license in isolation,
> without providing the code implementing the feature which makes this
> free, or even a good specification for it, I find it strange that
> you're now arguing that it's wrong to insist that a license be clearly
> free in isolation.
Do you want us to post a tarball of LaTeX? Alternatively, if you have
questions about implementation, could you not ask the LaTeX people?
I've seen David Carlisle, at least, post to this thread.
--
Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>
Reply to: