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

Re: A few more LPPL concerns



On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 06:05:35PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:

> I'm completely with you on that; what I meant was that when trying to
> clearly answer the question "where should the name-change requirement
> kick in?" that the LaTeX guys would probably be primarily considering
> the expectations of the users in those situations.

> So in my company, the four of us would all be well aware of the fact
> that we were using a hacked LaTeX. In a University, even if the system
> were only hacked in the installation and not further distributed. then
> the LaTeX project would like to require them to name-change, as otherwise
> a proportion of the users would almost certainly not be aware that they
> were not using standard LaTeX.

In terms of a legal definition of 'distribution', I believe the crucial
point here is that when you make the modified code available to everyone
at the University, you're making the code available to people who are
*not* employees of the University (students in particular).  Thus you're
distributing the work to a third party.  OTOH, if you make copies of the
work available only to employees of the University (faculty and staff),
this is not distribution to a third party.  It's still copying, which is
(obviously) covered under copyright law, but not distributing.

If the LPPL will restrict modification when distribution (by this
definition) does not take place, I don't think it can be regarded as
free.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpT2VOQ0XAr1.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: