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

Re: Towards a new LPPL draft

Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org> writes:

> 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.

I certainly have no problem with a suggestion.  I also don't really
have a problem with the requirement of a pointer to a place to find a
pristine latex (with the caveat, of course, that if no such place
exists to the best knowledge of the distributor that requirement is

>  in a redraft of LPPL i wuold try to limit any renaming requirement to such
>  files that need to change their file names in order to make this distinction
>  (or use the requirement to distinguish as the requirement rather than the
>  file name and only remark that in most cases this might mean that certain
>  files need new names. -> readme.txt would not need to change.

I like the idea of making the requirement to distinguish the
requirement.  That provides flexibility in the odd (and unlikely)
edge-cases that might need it.  It also maintains your intentions
better in those situations, I suspect.

>  from that it also follows that if on an OS with a different type of
>  filestructure (say MVS) that revised requirement would have other effects
>  (i've forgotten what the things got called on mvs, but all the classes lived a
>   single datastructures with members there, and so you wouldhave to chose a
>  different member name)
> does this answer the question?

Yes.  Thank you.

>  - if a file is not used by pristine LaTeX (that is a LaTeX kernel without the
>    remapping feature added) then there is no need for a renaming of any kind
>  - otherwise, if it is an object used at some point in the game by the
>    underlying macroprocessor (ie loaded) then the "name" used for loading
>    should be different --- that is not thefile name though in most
>    implementation it is a one to one mapping (which is why we suggested to use
>    the filename rename as an requirement.

If this is codified into the license, I see no issue with its
DFSG-freeness.  This states your intention (that a reference to 'foo'
always reference the same thing) but creates an explicit (in the
license) loophole in form of the filename remapping facility.

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

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

Reply to: