Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)
On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 16:03, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Still don't get it. You're either requiring modified work to follow a
> specific API, which is IMO non-free, or you don't get the desired
> protection against impostors, as a modified work could simply return the
> latex identifier.
I still don't see how the API is restricted.
> > > 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.
> > Why not? Why does embedding the name in a registration call offend you?
> For the same reason that limiting the API of any program would be
> non-free. I also wouldn't accept a C library that disallowed calling a
> modified function "printf".
printf("This is Standard LaTeX\n");
is not allowed, and the restriction is allowed by the DFSG.
What is the difference between that and the following?
(Which, as I understand it, is a C equivalent to the \NeedsTeXFormat
Remember that the only condition imposed on modifying the file would be
that you have to pick some other string to pass to register_std().
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org