>>>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:50:07 +0200, Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org> said: > Jeremy Hankins writes: >> Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> writes: >> >> > OK. Now I'd like to hear the Debian side. Here are the conditions for >> > modification that are being proposed as I understand them: >> > >> > - you must rename all modified files, or >> > >> > - you must rename the whole of LaTeX in your modified copy AND >> > distribute a pristine copy of LaTeX as well. >> > >> > Comments? Branden, Walter, Mark, and Jeremy, I'm especially interested >> > in your opinions, since you three are the current objectors. >> >> Yikes. I'd accept the former as free before the latter, personally. >> Giving users options is one thing, but option two seems to suggest >> that if Latex is forked for some reason we'll need to ferry around the >> original (from the date of the fork) version of latex whenever >> distributing the new version, forever. That's a far more onerous >> requirement than file renaming, imho. > let me first qualify the suggestion that Jeff made above > - the reason for it is to give the user the possibility to exchanges > documents with other using pristine LaTeX and obtain identical output > - it therefore quite pointless to carry around some old pristine LaTeX from > the day of the fork; if the above suggestion has to have value to the goals > we try to achieve with the LPPL license, then the suggestion would be to > keep a copy of current pristine LaTeX, though I doubt that could or should > be codified except as a suggestion. Would a pointer to a place where a pristine copy may be obtained, as part of the license text, be enough for you? Say, a URL pointing to http://www.latex-project.org/ ? -Brian
Attachment:
pgpzIYtBJryyF.pgp
Description: PGP signature