Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org> writes:
> you can, of course, combine/run GPL packages with the base format
> LaTeX-Format, there are a packages of packages licenced in this way
Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous to
linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined, derived work)? Have you
confirmed this in any way, or is this your opinion? Because if there
are GPL'd package files this may be an important issue. Especially if
any of them incorporate GPL code from other sources.
> 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.
Ok. As you say, something can still be free and yet not GPL
compatible. The only reason this would be a problem is if the GPL's
"viral" properties come into play when used with LaTeX-Format. To me
(IANAL) this seems likely since a package file is actually rewriting
the base format, as I understand it. If so it's fairly important that
the LPPL be GPL compatible, or that the GPL'd packages include an
exception allowing "linking" with LPPL stuff.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: