[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 12:48, Brian Sniffen wrote:
> > Plus, I've yet to hear a good argument for why the \NeedsTeXFormat thing
> > isn't DFSG-free.
> 
> I think it's a matter of which direction it's coming from.  There are
> several variants which are free, and several which aren't.  For
> example:
> 
> 1. "You can't distribute code using \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX} unless
>    you're a LaTeX maintainer."
> 
> 2. "You can only distribute code using
>    \NeedsTeXFormat{NonstandardLaTeX} unless you're a LaTeX maintainer."
> 
> 3. "You may not change the \NeedsTeXFormat{} string unless you're the
>    original author."
> 
> 4. "If you modify the file, and if the file had a
>    \NeedsTeXFormat{} string and an \OriginalNeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX}
>    already, you may not distribute it with the same NeedsTeXFormat
>    argument as the \OriginalNeedsTeXFormat argument.  You may not
>    modify the OriginalNeedsTeXFormat argument or the functioning of
>    the NeedsTeXFormat or OriginalNeedsTeXFormat commands."
> 
> I take it 4 is what's being considered?

No, not really.  I think this does point out something that's in the
back of my mind, but which should be discussed in detail.

I'll post a summary of my current thinking on the license soon, and let
everyone comment.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org



Reply to: