[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 Tue, 2002-07-23 at 22:31, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> > > 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.

How is it an API change to register the name of the work you belong to?

(I understand that the macro itself is an API change, but there is no
reason why the API itself would need to change for each derived work.)

Remember that derived works would be allowed to accept macros from any
other "source", so debTeX could allow "LaTeX" and "debTeX" as
arguments.  Thus, backward compatibility would be preserved.  For
forward compatibility, the LaTeX team could decide to accept "debTeX"
macros as well (assuming the debTeX team wasn't willing to contribute
the changes upstream).

> > 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?

We already allow for the concept that programs may not be allowed to
"lie" about their origin in that they may be required to have a
different name.  For some time now, we have been telling the LaTeX
people that we allow them to require renaming "latex" to "footex".

So now we add a facility for files to identify themselves as a part of a
greater work and require them to be "truthful" about that name (for a
given definition of "truthful").  I see no necessary violation here.

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

Reply to: