[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 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".

OK.  But:

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 debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: