Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeremy Hankins writes:
> 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)?
it is not at all like linking in my understanding. I take it that you are not
familar with the TeX world. The best analogy that i can think of right now is
this (there might be better ones):
emacs binary TeX binary
emacs core elc files LaTeX-Format
vm some package
now emacs bin, the core elc files, and vm may all be under GPL but even if not
would one influence the other? i seriously doubt it even if vm would rewrite
several functions of the core elc files. it is using something together, eg my
emacs lisp package might as well work with some other lisp if i'm careful or
vice versa
> 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 must confess it is only my opinion, but i think it stands to reason. nobody
ever suggested otherwise. i guess you would have a certain point on the level
of the base format as that could be byte compiled (for speed reasons), ie the
files making up the LaTeX format are usually precompiled into a single file
but even that is not a requirement, you can load them directly. However, there
is no GPL code involved and (will not be ever if that is a danger)
> > 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.
i understand about the "viral" properties of GPL but i don't think they would
apply to packages which are inidividual things that can be used seperately
with several "base formats" are distributed separately etc. please tell us if
you think otherwise.
frank
Reply to: