Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

[Barak Pearlmutter <barak@cs.may.ie>]

Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of
how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction
between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good
stuff, we could back up a step?  This all really an attempt to
procedurally implement an underlying concern.  Maybe the concern
itself could be directly expressed in the license, abstracted away
from its implementation?

Something like this:

    You must not cause files to misrepresent themselves as approved by
    the official LaTeX maintenance group, or to misrepresent
    themselves as perfectly compatible with such files (according to
    compatibility criteria established by the official LaTeX
    maintenance group).

Would this satisfy the LaTeX people?  Because I think it would satisfy
the DFSG.  It might (arguably, perhaps) even be GPL compatible, if the
authorship representation parts of the GPL are properly construed.
--
Barak A. Pearlmutter <barak@cs.may.ie>
 Hamilton Institute, NUI Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
 http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/