Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

[Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org>]

Walter Landry writes:
 > <snip>
 > > > > This example seems to indicate that your main problem with the
 > > > > validator is that it seems like a programmatic restriction.  If it
 > > > > were made more clear that this is not the case, would this satisfy
 > > > > you?  How would you change it?
 > > > 
 > > > It would satisfy me, but I can't think of a wording that will likely
 > > > satisfy the LaTeX people.  

we may have to work on the wording, but in priniciple i can't see why we
should have problems with that (some suggestions already floating around in
other posts of mine)

 > > And, having worked with the LaTeX people for a while now, I think it's
 > > fairly likely that they'll accept wording to that effect.
 > 
 > The reason I was pessimistic is because the individual files are not
 > interactive programs.  They are interpreted by another program.  That
 > program could easily change it's behavior based on what it reads.  If,
 > for example, I created a "Trusted LaTeX" that aborted if the
 > validation didn't work, then not allowing people to make modified
 > versions that work in trusted LaTeX is too much of a restriction.

a valid concern, though i think one could phrase it that is not a problem, see
other post.

 > But this also touches on one thing that Frank said.  He seemed to
 > imply that it doesn't actually matter what program you're using, the
 > Base Format is just the format defined by LaTeX.  

close, guess here again my english has failed. it is the base-format as
defined by the license, either the default "LaTeX-format" or whatever is
specified on the Work when licensed under LPPL (example is given in the
license how this could look like).

 > So if the LaTeX
 > people become evil and later decide to change the format so that you
 > get different behavior with non-validating files, then there has been
 > a retroactive change in the licensing terms.  What exactly the format
 > is needs to be nailed down.

good point. not in the license terms but in the result -- bad

but again something along the lines of 

 1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
    that it isn't the original package
 
 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be
    used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages
    without making any other processing changes, you must use that.

would take care of that, or not? (2) would apply only if not evil and if we
turn evil you only have to do (1)

frank