Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

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

Jeremy Hankins writes:
 > Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org> writes:
 > >> Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> writes:
 > 
 > >>> Except that you can't make GPL code validate with the LPPL
 > >>> validator, since the GPL and LPPL are not compatible.  So, since
 > >>> there's no danger that the code will be run through the validator
 > >>> and identify itself as "standard", the GPL satisfies 7a.  So the
 > >>> GPL is a valid license to relicense LPPL code under.
 > >>>
 > >>> (At least, that's my understanding.)
 > >
 > > I'm not sure that i understand Jeff here. the intention of 7a is
 > > that if FOO is under LPPL, then a derived work made from FOO honors
 > > 5a, ie, it does not claim to the user that it is the original FOO
 > > either via 5a1 or 5a2 (5a3 is irrelevant as this is "a general do
 > > what you like" for certain files, so for the discussion we can
 > > assume that FOO is not of this type)
 > 
 > He's saying (assuming I'm understanding properly) that since you can't
 > incorporate GPL files into latex (since the LPPL isn't GPL compatible)
 > making a file GPL is enough to ensure that the file will never
 > misrepresent itself to latex -- since it can never be used with latex
 > at all.

it is probably pointless to speculate what he meant, the above interpretation
is in any case wrong as far as I can tell.

not sure what "latex" in your sentence refer to but

 you can, of course, combine/run GPL packages with the base format
 LaTeX-Format, there are a packages of packages licenced in this way

 you can also produce a base format that is licensed under GPL und combine/run
 packages licensed under LPPL with it. That base format could, for example,
 omit the "validation" so that the user is not informed if a modified LPPL
 package is being used.

 

 > But I pointed out that one could imagine someone writing a GPL version
 > of the latex base, in which case files intended to be used with the
 > gpl latex (which are gpl'd, and perhaps based years ago on an LPPL'd
 > file) could be put together with the LPPL latex.

yes you could write a NonStandard-LaTeX-format (under GPL) which would treat,
say,

\ProvidesPackage...

as an absolute noop. If \ProvidesPackage is the facility from LaTeX-format
referred to in the LPPL for the package FOO then a fork of FOO or a relicense
under 7a would mean that you would need to say, for example

\ProvidesPackage{FOO gpl version}

or whatever you like as long as you don't keep

\ProvidesPackage{FOO}

unchanged. For your GPL base format this would be a comment and disregarded
while if this gets used together with the base format LaTeX-format the user
would get the proper information.


 > If that remote possibility is a problem, and from your comment it is,
 > then there's no way I could relicense an LPPL'd file as GPL, even for
 > use in my terminal emulation program (for example).

i don't think it is a problem. you can not relicense an LPPL file simply as
GPL that is true, but you can relicense it as GPL plus a restriction given by
7a->5a.

so yes, this cannot be simply GPL without some strings attached, but i don't
think you should make that a point against the license; after all 7a is an
extra, other licenses often do not allow you to relicense derived works under
anything than the exact conditions of the original license, e.g., I can't take
your GPL code and use it and distribute the result under LPPL or under some
other license, can I (GPL 2b)?

frank