Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 10:22, Mark Rafn wrote:
> 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.
No, no. The *kernel* would do the recognition, not the documents. It
would have a list of "acceptable" values for that macro.
Thus, "latex" would refuse to use any modules that didn't identify
themselves as Standard LaTeX, while "debtex" would accept modules that
identified themselves as "debTeX" or Standard LaTeX.
A particular API may or may not work at any time due to other factors,
but there's no reason why debTeX couldn't process any Standard LaTeX
document, or why LaTeX couldn't process debTeX documents.
> > 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
Why not? Why does embedding the name in a registration call offend you?
> > 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.
Give me some reasons. "I don't like it" is really hard to argue with,
address, or even evaluate.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com