Re: Suggestion for dual-licensed LaTeX (was Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft))
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 10:34, Brian Sniffen wrote:
> I'd like to suggest a licensing variant for LaTeX which uses a
> weakened form of the API restrictions discussed earlier. In its
> simplest form, this requires distribution of two versions of LaTeX.
> One is under a no-cost-but-proprietary modification ("OpenLaTeX")
> similar to the LPPL3, but which allowed code licensed under it to also
> be used under the terms of the FreeLaTeX license. The other
> ("FreeLaTeX") is under a DFSG-free license which:
> * permits free modification and distribution of modified code
> * does not permit use of the "I'm a part of OpenLaTeX" command
> * does not permit creation of a file 'latex.fmt'
> * permits any code licensed under it to be used under the terms of the
> OpenLaTeX license.
> The net effect of this is that academics and those who care primarily
> about document permenance would use OpenLaTeX: it's got a stable,
> controlled interface, lives up to the ideals of the LaTeX project
> regarding static document rendering, and gets to benefit from
> interesting works developed for FreeLaTeX. Debian would not be able
> to put OpenLaTeX in its main archive, but might well distribute it in
> the non-free archive.
> Those who care primarily about the freeness of software, or who wish
> to take a macro language apart and put it together again, would use
> FreeLaTeX. Debian could distribute FreeLaTeX in its main archive.
> There would be no guarantee that FreeLaTeX would not have many
> incompatible versions.
> Frank, Debian folk, what do you think? Would this meet both of your
I'm not keen on forking unless we need to fork. If we have to make a
change that the LaTeX Project doesn't like, then yes, we need to fork.
Plus, I've yet to hear a good argument for why the \NeedsTeXFormat thing
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com