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

Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)

On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:

> On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> > The question here is how to guarantee that a changed overcite.sty
> > (without renaming) will not be used with pristine LaTeX, right?

This is insanity.  If this is the goal, just choose a nice simple license
"this can be used and distributed verbatim at no charge, but you may not
modify it without permission from the current maintainer".

> > LPPL in case of modification without renaming could, for example,
> > require to change an argument of \NeedsTeXFormat macro, i.e. to
> > replace
> > 
> >   \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}
> > 
> > in overcite.sty by something like
> > 
> >   \NeedsTeXFormat{sniffenlatex}

Requiring filename changes is objectionable at least partly because it's
hard to distinguish filename from the use of the program.  A license that
mandates API changes doesn't even pass the sniff test.

> This is an intriguing idea.  It appears to satisfy the need for LaTeX to
> ensure that a hacked file doesn't get run with pristine LaTeX while not
> running afoul of the DFSG.

How does this not run afoul of the DFSG?  It places even worse limits on 
modification than the previous attempts?
Mark Rafn    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: