Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <email@example.com>
> No, it's true of C as well. We wouldn't accept a Perl, for instance, that
> forbade incompatible changes to the API, even if it allowed addition of
> keywords. It really is the case that we want to preserve the right to
> make machine-indistinguishable subtly-incompatible changes. We recommend
> against it, but if someone can't do it, it's not free.
Another thought in this thread. I already mention the biggest
difference between the Perl programs and our documents. You can afford
throw out a Perl program in a decade; our documents are supposed to be
If you insist on the freedom of introduction of
"machine-indistinguishable subtly-incompatible changes", you are
losing not just TeX or LaTeX. You are losing any sensible document
storage and interchange format.
This discussion is not caused by some special obstinacy of LaTeX
community or our peculiar distaste for freedom. This discussion is
caused by certain needs of our community. If these needs are
incompatible with your understanding of freedom, we are forced to
remain non-free in your eyes. Sorry, but nothing can be done by our
goodwill or effort.
"Nuclear war can ruin your whole compile."
-- Karl Lehenbauer
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com