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:
pgpmRqhtahAG0.pgp
Description: PGP signature