Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)
> > > 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}
> On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 22:31, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > 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.
On 24 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> How is it an API change to register the name of the work you belong to?
Perhaps I misunderstood, but it sounded like it would be required for a
modified work to identify itself as modified, so that documents can
determine if they're running on "real" latex. This disallows preserving
the API exactly while changing the execution.
> 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.
A different name to humans. A different package name, sure. In some
cases, a different executable name (This would be problematic if it
were broad enough). A different name in it's API? I don't think that
follows.
> 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.
Adding the facility is no worry. Requiring derived works to use that
facility is non-free IMO.
--
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: