[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Motivations; proposed alternative license

On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 12:16:28AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> yes. we do as well about 90% of the latex software around has nothing to do
> with the latex project team from which the license comes. it is neither
> certified or directly integrated nor anything. it improves on the kernel or
> addes new features to the language (including klingon or whatever) therby
> probably breaking a lot of things within the language if used together but all
> that is fine and okay under the license. the license only ensures that
> \usepackage{klingon}
> \usepackage{babel}
> will break in the same way here as well at your desk so that if i send you
> \usepackage{klingon}
> \usepackage{babel}
> \renewcommand\klingonblabla....
> it will work for you (for the current document) because it worked here.

It does no such thing.

The license does not prohibit me from creating a completely new
package called "babel" and installing that instead, nor can it.

Thusly the license is useless for this purpose.

Short of patents, you simply cannot do this via legal means. Find a
sane way to do it, like an md5sum or DOCTYPE line. This is not a new
or particularly difficult problem.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'                          | Imperial College,
   `-             -><-          | London, UK

Attachment: pgpCwdbXMeYKn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: