Re: OFL license analysis
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
In practice, this means that the version string displayed in the file
log of a LaTeX run will be different, and that the user, or a developer
of a package that uses "the work", has the possibility to check for the
version and act accordingly; it does of course not mean that he must do
such a check.
Ok, that seems reasonable to me. Much like the human-readable version
info when running a program with -v or whatnot.
A human can tell the difference if he bothers to look. System software
does not change behavior based on this human identification.
I know, the freedom to shoot yourself into the foot. But I think it's
not unreasonable to require that the user is at least notified what
happened, and that can only be done by changing the identifier in an
interactive dialog, or by issuing font substitution warnings in a batch
I think our disagreement is that you think the licensor may require the
software to actively notify some user, where I think the licensor may
require that it be identifiable if the recipient of the software package
cares to look for such identification. Is this a fair summary?
I can see no way to force notification in most systems that does not
interfere with the fundamental freedom to make changes.
Mark Rafn email@example.com <http://www.dagon.net/>